Can you point out where in that clip a misunderstanding of economics led to an incorrect statement please.
This is a totally empty statement outside of reminding us that "everything's subjective". You could just as easily say the dichotomy between science and mysticism, or the earth and the sun, are all synthetic distinctions and as such we shouldn't take them very seriously.
Can you actually give examples of Marxist doctrine that merits it being described as the above?
So the only political divide to your mind that transcends rhetorical illusion would be anarchy and not anarchy.
Well do nazis advertize their idoelogy with gas chambers and world war? Surely not but somehow that ultra-nationalistic rhetoric ended up with both. Did Marx advertize his ideology with starvation of dozens of millions of humans, and horrible living standards? (as documented by left-wing) Probably not, but that is what happened in every communist state. You can say they weren't "real" communists if you want.
But to answer your question: yes, to remove private property and trade you need violence and force. In fact to prevent people from trading (which is hated by marxism), you need a very immersive regulatory agency like they did in communist states. To socialize the means of production (which is the dictionary definition for socialism), you need an army as when you go nationalize everyone's capital (factories, farms, houses, land) there'll be (armed) resistance. A lot of people will protest, but usually you need a dictatorship to keep things in order, and maybe they have to be shot down to avoid a coup (like Lenin did, summary executions).
Incorrect analogy. What I'm saying is that making categories for political movements is not that easy. I gave my reasoning for my classification, if you don't like it fine. I don't bother arguing about it for more than I'm going to argue about genre of a music artist or video game.
Look at the situation from say Poland or Eastern Europe point of view. First nazis come and kill (and rape) them, then communists come and kill them. This is the cultural heritage that aA's opinions stem from. Then come and say well the soviets weren't real marxists, they were fake, like was Kim-Jong Il, Mao Zedong, Hồ Chí Minh, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, they were all fake too. Probably some nazis claim that those nazis weren't real nazis, but fake nazis! The real marxists wouldn't ever invade countries, nor would real national socialists!
I wasn't refering to the video, I was talking generally. He was mainly talking how the past communists weren't real marxists. I think I stopped watching after the part "Lenin was right-wing". Well not really, I watched it through. Also nothing prevents from workers owning means of production in a capitalist society as endorsed by Chomsky. Nothing prevents socialist societies existing in a free world. Its just when people are free to choose whether to be part of these socialist societies or not, they usually say no, thus communists have had to take over the army to make their socialist fantasies happen.
I've been aware of Chomsky's libertarian socialism a long ago, and let's say I'm much more sympthatetic for his ideas that I am for other socialists, precisely because he doesn't like state power. All I say is good luck implementing socialism without state power. You can go ask some economists why marxist economics is not really developed anymore. But Chomsky's libertarian socialism is probably by definition, somewhat further away from nazis than other forms of socialism, this is true.
No but it's pretty easy to delineate such results within an ideology that quite openly advocated venerating people based on ethnic heritage. There was nothing in Marx like that.
As does any and every form of government.
I personally wouldn't have a problem with this because I think the ends by far justify the means, but assuming a Marxist government were democratically elected, exactly who is going to be leading anti Marxist militia groups? Loyal workers? Can you name a single company in the Western world who has treated their workers so well that they could rely on them risking their lives to save their bosses profits whilst remaining poor?
If people are too dumb to actually work out if people adhere to doctrines they claim to be acting upon then that's their problem.
No there are plenty of reasons why you can't do that, just no law against it. Libertarians (at least what the term now means after years of business propaganda) only understand liberty in the sense that you're free from government violence, but seem totally blind to the effects of legal private power. So yes, technically speaking there is nothing stopping a group of workers getting together and starting up a factory to produce xxx product. In reality, they will be competing to sell their goods against multiple companies with an endless list of advantages on their side, and most likely wouldn't be able to live on the money they made. The fact that you can still "choose" to give it a go, is no more a meaningful form of liberty than giving someone a car without an engine.
lol. Yeah I think a pretty important component to the lack of "socialist fantasies" story would involve the slightly more than insignificant effect of the West consistently funding coups/outright invasions to undermine such governments coming to power.
Yet, communists killed more than nazis ever did. Either by famine or persecutions initiated by literally every communist leader. Good intentions do not mean good consequences. In fact, the worst atrocities in this world have been done with the best intentions.
Kind of, but to different degrees. Like in UK, you're allowed to own all kinds of personal property compared to say North Korea. If you say, there's no difference, then fine but I disagree.
So you like government officials coming to your home and taking your all your property? How about just everyone. And how is this an argument for anything? After Hitler took power, many people fled Germany. The fact there wasn't an armed resistance militia does not mean that nazi ideas were any better. In fact Hitler was at least partially democratically voted to power, but when germans realized their mistake, it was too late.
Who said factories is the only capital?
Why would people risk for their lives for their factory owners more than they risk for the company providing say cleaning services for your apartment complex? Trade for labor isn't any more different than for trade for goods. Why would anyone risk his life for a neighbours house? Maybe because one thinks its wrong to take the house.
The only way out of poverty on national basis is basically economic growth (either by history or by economic theory).
Liberalism used to mean classical liberalism, but then american left-wing took the term, and they had to call themselves classical liberals or libertarians. Later Noam Chomsky has somehow tried to take the term to refer to his ideas.
Of course, if I setup a company, I'm going to face competition. What is the problem here? Not many entrepneurs can live off the money the make (here it was something around 60% iirc). Being an entrepeneur, or a capitalist, has high risks, but high rewards.
And where did I say I approve any of the methods governments (I'm pretty sure you are talking about US and UK governments) use to meddle with other countries' affairs? In fact, I never said in the topic, but I'm very non-interventionist and anti-war. Most socialists states have destroyed/reformed themselves, Soviet Union is a great example. The socialist policies are so economically inefficient, that many communistic states realized that either they had reform or try to keep their citizens inside with force and more control (North Korea, DDR). Most US foreign policy problems stem from their intervention in the Middle East and Africa. Personally I do not like state's foreign power any more than its domestic one.
I don't buy the good intentions bullshit, most of the people who preside over genocides are just psychopaths who pay lip serive to a greater cause. Having said that, it's irrelevant. There is nothing in Marxism that advocates genocide.
You're allowed to own egregious amounts of property whilst others starve. That's the difference. Communism doesn't have a problem with people owning things, it has a problem with a small amount of individuals owning a ridiculously large amount of property whilst the exploited starve to death.
I'm not saying a lack of armed resistence is a justification of anything.. You raised to issue of possible armed resistence as being a cause for concern regarding a violent government backlash. I'm saying that I doubt it would happen. Although, if it did, the government would be right to fight it.
I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Are you asking why someone would be willing to fight for the poor over the rich?
So basically what I said except that the people who you side with in taking the term you label as "had to take", and Chomsky (who is completely correct in identifying what libertarianism originally meant as reflecting his views) as "somehow tried to take".
"Going to face competition". That's only a reasonable reflection of the state you're in if the competition starts of with an equal position. Which it clearly doesn't. Your original point was that there's nothing stopping workers from owning the means of production; implicitly suggesting that the market shows us that workers simply don't want to do that because they haven't done it. I'm saying that while it's not illegal for them to do it, the fact that it's essentially impossible for them to do so means that drawing such a conclusion would be pretty ridiculous.
You didn't, you just said that the lack of socialist states in the world would suggest people don't want them. This is a ridiculous thing to say without ackowledging that the West, notably the US and the CIA, have worked tirelessly to ensure that popular foreign leftist movements have been supressed.
Yet famines are practically extinct in all modern market economies, however famines are very common in socialist states because lack of price system to allocate scarce goods and enable economic growth which decreases the resources necessary to produce food.
There's nothing in socialism that advocates famine, but yet famines have been very common in socialist states (Last famine in North Korea killed anywhere from 1 million to 3.5 million people in 1990s). And genocides, and perseuctions, and horrible livings standards and lack of individual freedom. They don't all necessarily follow from marxism but there's a strong correllation. Famines follow from certain economic theories arising from socialist economic calculation problems, known by practically all modern economists.
Fighting "for the poor" does not mean the poor are going to end up any better. On the contrary. I'm sure a lot of communists thought they were fighting "for the poor" even though it ended up horribly for them.
No, people don't really want them. Most people have tried to escape socialist states. Probably most North Koreans and East Germans wanted to leave their country but are/were not allowed to.
I doubt I am going to be bothered to respond anymore. Go read some basic economics book. Besides, debate as a tool is overrated. It is not like you are going to change your views more than some public player is going to support competitive ideas for NS. Without a competitive background, he is not going to understand the mechanics of the system to understand valid premises.
I disagree jiriki, most communist states in the history have had major influences from the other ruling lands surrounding them. You can't blame a lack of economy for the poverty and famine in a socialist system when other systems surrounding the socialist system are taking things from the socialist system!
Things aren't closed loop, it's almost meaningless to even hypothesize that they have ever been!
And yes, I strongly argue that no communism has ever existed (according to documented records).
Socialism and trade are not necessarily mutually exclusive either.
Would you like to comment on the just shy of 1 billion people currently living in the world who are undernourished? A lot of these people live in the most "modern market economies" in the world. Assuming what you mean by "modern market economy" are those who have adopted to the fullest, free market mantras. If instead what you mean by modern market economies is infact just the West, well then would you like to comment on how our wealth is essentially underwritten by third world exploitation?
To suggest that the prime reason for famine in "Communist" sates is an inability of human beings to determine accurate prices of goods outside of reading market trends is ridiculous. It's not so much famines occurring in communist states as it is that poverty and famine already span the globe. Due to the uneven but combined development in different parts of the world, isolated communist countries are unable to match, on a national level, the productivity of the world market.
Furthermore, taking the USSR as a prime example, it was a conscious decision of the state to plough agricultural surpluses into industrial growth. You might think this was a bad decision but given WW1, WW2, the civil war, and the constant looming threat of the capitalist bloc requiring an enormous military, it's perhaps understandable.
As for the genocide nonsense.. Yes, a strong state CAN facilitate genocide. In the same way atheism CAN facilitate genocide, in the same way that democracy CAN facilitate fascism, etc etc etc... There is nothing innate within allowing workers to keep their surplus value, or a state appropriating that surplus and redistributing it that entails persecution or genocide. People in a more authoritarian and bigoted age acted as such when given the means to do so. If a Marxist government were elected in Britain today, people wouldn't suddenly decide voting and constitutional rights weren't much of a big deal anymore.
So that is what you were saying or not? I'm not really following how this tangent follows from the original discussion but w/e. Are you actually contesting that fighting for the poor as being a desirable goal in itself because if not then all this really amounts to is a vague warning that sometimes actions you engage in don't always result in outcomes you predicted.
Sorry but North Korea is a military dictatorship. Plain and simple. You can argue that a desire for communism or resitributed wealth pursuent to greater equality will inevitably lead to gulags if you want (my response is above), but the fact remains that the existence of such regiemes ARE NOT MARXIST. Someone who doesn't want to be killed for anti revolutionary spirit, is someone who doesn't want to be killed, they're not making a statement against Marxist economics*. On the other hand, in places like Latin America, we see frequent grass roots movements that are EXPLICITLY ENDORSING socialist/Marxist doctrine and actually want to live in such a society. Thanks to America, it's rather difficult.
*If they actually are, then fair enough; but documenting that people want to leave North Korea certainly isn't sufficient grounds to assume that.
The only difference between you reading an economics book and having a debate is that when you read a book you didn't ask any questions. The whole point of a debate is that you actually have your ideas tested, rather than just being blindly indoctrinated by elaborate mathematical models based on nonsense that assure you that it's all ok that you're rich and other people are poor because the magic of the market cleanses all sins. I don't have a problem understanding the "valid premises understood by practically all economists" you've so far brought up in this dicussion, but if you'd like to wow me with what you learnt in your economics text book then feel free to give it a go. Personally, if I were you, I'd probably talk with a little more humility when espousing the nonsense of shill economists who were all pretty fucking happy about ending business cycles until, welp, turns out you can't build an economy on debt.
I'm not advocating that position, I'm giving those as logical extensions of an argument that points out our political abstractions as being based on no objective categorization. Nothing is.
the diffrence between jirik's arguments and yours is that jiriki gives some practical examples when your arguments are based on what you think, which is completly nonsense and has/had nothing to do with reality.
i'm really amazed he was arsead enought to even debate with you, cause i cbed at certain point.
wikipedia and youtube are very reliable sources of information...
aA I'm not exaggerating when I say this but you are literally the dumbest sounding person I have ever talked to on the internet. Obviously the fact that you can't speak English and have a tumor in the particular neural pathway that would normally function to instruct an individual who was aware of such a shortcoming that they should probably try using a spellchecker before making posts in English is a mitigating circumstance, but even in view of that caveat, the underlying points you make really are offensively stupid. Like, for instance, the only content rich statement you've made so far in this thread, which was that Soviet Communism and Nazism were the same things. Which was why you thought an appropriate flag to represent a Nazi theme was a communist flag. You fucking clown.
I addressed his examples and introduced examples of my own. The fact I offered you accessable mediums (wikipedia/youtube) in which to view that information isn't a particularly stellar criticism unless you're about to debunk those wikipedia articles with some Polish scholarly insight. Perhaps you should go back to watching your favourite anime aA, "too much history make you confuse" afterall.
i've already noticed that your only arguments refer to your native language just like gay's and that's the farthest you can come, actually your next step is "you dont know what you are saying, you dont know english" AND I TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY AND PERSOANLLY ; D
I approve bendor's fantastic sum-up of this offtopic conversation.
Please continue Gay, I'm still interested in reading how a real marxism economy works since no one could ever point that really out to me yet. (You know since the central planning things weren't real marxism etc)
Both are right, your pedantic attempt at spoiling a point failed.
I even knew before I'd posted, that you'd be the one to try and correct this. Yes that's right, you've replaced Fana in his grammar nazi status.
Feel shame.
As for aA, hah, seriously, you try to troll Eistee about his country not having a language of it's own, but at the same time, your language is just a combination of other languages anyway... Like everyone's.
And to put a cherry on top, you're speaking English, badly.
Seriously, if you want to call yourself a troll, first, make some fucking sense, you look like a spade; secondly, make some fucking sense, seriously we struggle to understand what you're saying and when we finally do it's plain idiocy. If you make some sense, you might not be the only person who doesn't think its plain retarded.
