LDS & ex-LDS Political Ideologies

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.

Political Leanings & Shift

 
Total votes: 0

_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Post by _ajax18 »

So the invisible hand you were referring to has made it so that the minority has been able to gain control of most of the wealth.


I wonder if there are enough rich people in that minority to actually control the majority of the wealth, or is it just a few lucky bastards who beat the system, but if you were to take these few away it still wouldn't make much impact on the standard of living of the average Schmo.

What you outlined by Marx is clearly a problem of the captialist system. Yet given the problems of other systems captialism still seems to be the best system there is.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_Zoidberg
_Emeritus
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:42 am

Post by _Zoidberg »

ajax18 wrote:
So the invisible hand you were referring to has made it so that the minority has been able to gain control of most of the wealth.


I wonder if there are enough rich people in that minority to actually control the majority of the wealth, or is it just a few lucky bastards who beat the system, but if you were to take these few away it still wouldn't make much impact on the standard of living of the average Schmo.

What you outlined by Marx is clearly a problem of the captialist system. Yet given the problems of other systems captialism still seems to be the best system there is.


If you think in global terms, I would say that redistribution of wealth would make a difference for some people who currently can't afford the most basic essentials.

If I didn't put zero stock in humanity, I would probably be a communist. Unfortunately, people are.. well, people.
"reason and religion are friends and allies" - Mitt Romney
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

I don't think fascism and socialism are the same.


No one has claimed they were.


They are both command economies (as opposed to pure capitalism) but here are the differences I see (note: socialist opinions have to do with what Marx wrote, not what came about in Russia/China/etc):


Yes Bond, but what has transpired in Russia and China and Cuba and many other communist societies has to do with precisely what Marx wrote, and Marx wrote quite a lot, much of it unsystemantic and obtuse. Anyone who has read the Communist Manifesto, however, will se therein most of what has actually transpired under communism in practice.


Importance of State
Fascism=focus on Nationalism/the state
Socialism=focus on International community-->eventual shift toward a stateless society (as Marx believed the state's primary purpose was to mediate disputes between economic classes...the single class in power would take away the reason for Marx's state to exist)

Means of Production
Fascism=controlled by state (a minority of the population)
Socialism=controlled by the workers (a majority of the population)


This needs some emendation. In a fascist society, and this included significant elements of Nazi industrial policy, government regulation and control of the economy is so substantial that, although industries are not nationalized, they are de facto creatures of the state.

In a socialist society, the means of production have been entirely expropriated by the state; there is no private ownership in any major industries or productive activities at all. In a fascist state, there is still private ownership of the means of production, in a socialist society, there is none. This means, contra what you have amazingly claimed above, that, far from being controlled by workers, the means of production are controlled entirely by the socialist ruling class. Without private property, there is no such thing as control of private property. He that owns property, controls it.

The "dictatorship of the Proletariat" was never more than a pretext for the utter domination of the economic (and hence political and social) life of a country through the transferring of the lion's share of economic life to the state sphere and out of private control. Worker control is a fiction and always has been. Marx himself foresaw a totalitarian, one party state in control of the means of production as the transitory form of governance between capitalism and communism. If Marx claimed that this was all done in the name of the workers and that the workers somehow now "owned" that which was under the total domination of the state, we may put this down to Marx's sincere belief or to clever wordplay, but we cannot excuse Marx for creating the conditions and intellectual justification for what came after, and for creating the ideas the logical conclusions and implications of which necessarily drove the adherents of Marxism to create the kinds of societies they created, and for being the kind of philosophical system to which hubris driven tyrants like Lenin and Stalin and Mao were naturally drawn.

Bond, you and Barrel seem bent on a serious equivocation in this argument. You insist upon describing both fascism ans Nazism as they were actually practiced, but exempt socialism from analysis based upon the actual application of theory. The theory of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was, in practice, and could only have been, a form of fascism: economic, social,and political collectivism, government control of the economy (in the case of socialism, total, or as close to total control as possible), and the use of terror, coercion, and elaborate social controls to compel compliance (the modern term for which is "political correctness) with the grand program of social transformation.

The "communism" you seem intent on defining as over against fascism is the fantasy world of Marx's imagination, not the actual socialism that was capable of application and which indeed was put into practice by the disciples of Marx beginning in October, 1917.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_karl61
_Emeritus
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:29 pm

Post by _karl61 »

Coggins7 wrote:
I don't think fascism and socialism are the same.


No one has claimed they were.


They are both command economies (as opposed to pure capitalism) but here are the differences I see (note: socialist opinions have to do with what Marx wrote, not what came about in Russia/China/etc):


Yes Bond, but what has transpired in Russia and China and Cuba and many other communist societies has to do with precisely what Marx wrote, and Marx wrote quite a lot, much of it unsystemantic and obtuse. Anyone who has read the Communist Manifesto, however, will se therein most of what has actually transpired under communism in practice.


Importance of State
Fascism=focus on Nationalism/the state
Socialism=focus on International community-->eventual shift toward a stateless society (as Marx believed the state's primary purpose was to mediate disputes between economic classes...the single class in power would take away the reason for Marx's state to exist)

Means of Production
Fascism=controlled by state (a minority of the population)
Socialism=controlled by the workers (a majority of the population)


This needs some emendation. In a fascist society, and this included significant elements of Nazi industrial policy, government regulation and control of the economy is so substantial that, although industries are not nationalized, they are de facto creatures of the state.

In a socialist society, the means of production have been entirely expropriated by the state; there is no private ownership in any major industries or productive activities at all. In a fascist state, there is still private ownership of the means of production, in a socialist society, there is none. This means, contra what you have amazingly claimed above, that, far from being controlled by workers, the means of production are controlled entirely by the socialist ruling class. Without private property, there is no such thing as control of private property. He that owns property, controls it.
The "dictatorship of the Proletariat" was never more than a pretext for the utter domination of the economic (and hence political and social) life of a country through the transferring of the lion's share of economic life to the state sphere and out of private control. Worker control is a fiction and always has been. Marx himself foresaw a totalitarian, one party state in control of the means of production as the transitory form of governance between capitalism and communism. If Marx claimed that this was all done in the name of the workers and that the workers somehow now "owned" that which was under the total domination of the state, we may put this down to Marx's sincere belief or to clever wordplay, but we cannot excuse Marx for creating the conditions and intellectual justification for what came after, and for creating the ideas the logical conclusions and implications of which necessarily drove the adherents of Marxism to create the kinds of societies they created, and for being the kind of philosophical system to which hubris driven tyrants like Lenin and Stalin and Mao were naturally drawn.

Bond, you and Barrel seem bent on a serious equivocation in this argument. You insist upon describing both fascism ans Nazism as they were actually practiced, but exempt socialism from analysis based upon the actual application of theory. The theory of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was, in practice, and could only have been, a form of fascism: economic, social,and political collectivism, government control of the economy (in the case of socialism, total, or as close to total control as possible), and the use of terror, coercion, and elaborate social controls to compel compliance (the modern term for which is "political correctness) with the grand program of social transformation.

The "communism" you seem intent on defining as over against fascism is the fantasy world of Marx's imagination, not the actual socialism that was capable of application and which indeed was put into practice by the disciples of Marx beginning in October, 1917.


Welcome to Brigham Young's Utah.
I want to fly!
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

adf
Last edited by Dr. Sunstoned on Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:38 pm, edited 4 times in total.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Welcome to Brigham Young's Utah.



I don't expect intellectually substantive statements from you styleguy, and its always nice to have my expectations confirmed.

Why don't you just admit you're in over your head and have done with it.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Tsdf
Last edited by Dr. Sunstoned on Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

thought Coggins has already explained how modern-day liberals are all commies. Or fascists, or Nazis - it's all the same.

They are all godless heathens who want to take away American freedom to carry guns, torture prisoners, invade whatever countries they please without giving a damn about what the UN has to say... You get the idea. What a miserable country it will be if Kucinich wins! In fact, I'm sure he would start his term with opening a gulag.


Zoid, whether or not you are really from Eastern Europe or whether you're just another American leftist Moonbat howling into the night sky, I can see you for what you are, and please do not think that I cannot.

This comment says it all:

General liquidations until Gorbachev?!? There were some exiles even after Stalin, but that's it.


This is again, an example of the kind of stupidity that takes a great deal of nurturing, systematic effort and care to bring to fruition. You are an apologist for the most evil, inhumane, and repressive political system in the history of this planet, and minimizing its impacts and whitewashing its history do you no credit whatsoever.

First go here http://gulaghistory.org/nps/about/

Then to this page:

http://gulaghistory.org/nps/about/history.php

You will here see this text:

The camp, one of several hundred logging camps in the Perm region, was constructed in 1946 at the height of the Soviet forced labor system that came to be known as the Gulag. In 1972, during a period of renewed political repression in the USSR, Perm-36 was converted into a political prison, and for the next 15 years, the camp, along with two others nearby, held many of the Soviet Union’s most prominent dissidents. Among them were human right activists such as Vladimir Bukovsky, Sergey Kovalev, Anatoly Marchenko, Yury Orlov, as well as many Ukrainian, Baltic, Tatar and Caucasian nationalist leaders and Jewish activists, including Nathan Sharansky.

Some 18 million people passed through these camps from Stalin's time to the collapse of the evil empire,a an unknown number of them, some millions, died while in those camps.

Zoid, The Gulag Archipelago was written in 1973, two decades after Stalin's reign.

Now go here:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/gula.html

Here's what we see:

The Soviet system of forced labor camps was first established in 1919 under the Cheka, but it was not until the early 1930s that the camp population reached significant numbers. By 1934 the Gulag, or Main Directorate for Corrective Labor Camps, then under the Cheka's successor organization the NKVD, had several million inmates. Prisoners included murderers, thieves, and other common criminals--along with political and religious dissenters. The Gulag, whose camps were located mainly in remote regions of Siberia and the Far North, made significant contributions to the Soviet economy in the period of Joseph Stalin. Gulag prisoners constructed the White Sea-Baltic Canal, the Moscow-Volga Canal, the Baikal-Amur main railroad line, numerous hydroelectric stations, and strategic roads and industrial enterprises in remote regions. GULAG manpower was also used for much of the country's lumbering and for the mining of coal, copper, and gold.

Stalin constantly increased the number of projects assigned to the NKVD, which led to an increasing reliance on its labor. The Gulag also served as a source of workers for economic projects independent of the NKVD, which contracted its prisoners out to various economic enterprises.

Conditions in the camps were extremely harsh. Prisoners received inadequate food rations and insufficient clothing, which made it difficult to endure the severe weather and the long working hours; sometimes the inmates were physically abused by camp guards. As a result, the death rate from exhaustion and disease in the camps was high. After Stalin died in 1953, the Gulag population was reduced significantly, and conditions for inmates somewhat improved. Forced labor camps continued to exist, although on a small scale, into the Gorbachev period, and the government even opened some camps to scrutiny by journalists and human rights activists. With the advance of democratization, political prisoners and prisoners of conscience all but disappeared from the camps.



Now, back at the gulag memorial, we read again:

In 1972, during a period of renewed political repression in the USSR, Perm-36 was converted into a political prison, and for the next 15 years, the camp, along with two others nearby, held many of the Soviet Union’s most prominent dissidents. Among them were human right activists such as Vladimir Bukovsky, Sergey Kovalev, Anatoly Marchenko, Yury Orlov, as well as many Ukrainian, Baltic, Tatar and Caucasian nationalist leaders and Jewish activists, including Nathan Sharansky.


And of course, there were many others like this, which Solzhenitsyn symbolized as a chain of islands, an "archipelago".

Many of these people, Zoid, were political prisoners, not criminals by any normative western standards. They were there for thought crimes, and nothing more.

Then you could go here http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM for some figures regarding total government induced deaths within the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1989. You will see that it is far more than 20 million and that most of the deaths are attributable to the gulag system you say disappeared after the horrible, terrible Stalin was off the scene and those paragons of niceness, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko took the stage.

Indeed, I'd stay around a while at that website if I were you.

Really now, I'm not going to post to you anymore, this is my last one (I promise). Your views are so extreme, so intellectually vacuous, and so lacking in any serious reflective components that serious discourse with you is impossible. Your beliefs regarding both politics, history, and the Church are so unutterably bizarre that I find no perplexity whatever in conceiving you as being a supporter of an anti-American leftist ideologue like Kucinich who sees the Constitution and Declaration as impediments to his ideological and political ambitions (when they are, in fact, protections to us against people precisely like him) and for whom his own country, not the Taliban, not Al Qaada, not the PLO, Not Hamas, not Hezbollah, and not the U.S.S.R. when it still existed, is the problem.

The following is thigh slapping hilarious, if that is, you can laugh and slap your thigh while simultaneously throwing up:

They are all godless heathens who want to take away American freedom to carry guns, torture prisoners, invade whatever countries they please without giving a damn about what the UN has to say.


Americans are indeed free to defend themselves against criminal predation. This is a fundamental constitutional right. I'm not aware of a single instance of anything approaching what any reasonable person would consider "torture" ever occurring at any of our military interrogation centers. Water boarding? Barking dogs? Sleep deprivation? Brittney Spears at high volume (well, this is coming close)?

Come on now...

As far as the U.N., few intelligent observers care what it says anymore because it long ago lost any intellectual or moral credibility. Indeed, the U.N. is probably one of the single greatest impediments to peace in the Middle East, to use just one example, with which the world has to deal. The socialist thugs, kleptocrats, tyrants, and third world despots who make up most of its body do not see things that way, however.

Oh, and by the way Zoid, the U.N. was ready, with Bill Clinton, in the late 90s to do exactly what George Bush has done. At least, everybody was threatening Saddam with invasion at that time. Clinton didn't follow through on the idea of regime change, but after 9/11, Bush did. Bush actually carried through with the threat after 9/11 to clear the chessboard (we had been at war, after all, with Saddam continuously for almost 12 years) and his country was a haven for terrorists and terrorist training. And, although there were no WMD in Iraq ready to fire, we now know that, in fact, there was substantial WMD in Iraq after the first Gulf War, but Saddam had dismantled, scattered, and hidden it in the hopes that while the Oil for Food program enriched him and his regime and he kept inspectors away from his country, in time the U.S. would lose interest in him and his activities and he could reconstitute his WMD programs. Check the Rob/Silverman report, the Kay report, and the final Iraq Study Group report.

Goodbye Zoid.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Post by _Chap »

Coggins7:

I'm not aware of a single instance of anything approaching what any reasonable person would consider "torture" ever occurring at any of our military interrogation centers. Water boarding?


What is waterboarding?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboard ... ing_100406

Waterboarding is a torture technique that simulates drowning in a controlled environment. It consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face[1] to force the inhalation of water into the lungs.[2] Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex,[3] and can make the subject believe death is imminent. Waterboarding's use as a method of torture or means to support interrogation is based on its ability to cause extreme mental distress while possibly creating no lasting physical damage to the subject. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last long after the procedure.[4] Although waterboarding in cases can leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries as a result of struggling against restraints (including broken bones), and even death.[5]


http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation ... id=1322866


6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.



Of course no reasonable person could call any of that torture.
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

gae
Last edited by Dr. Sunstoned on Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
Post Reply