|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 22, 2024 20:50:53 GMT
That's your decision. It's regrettable. Let's see how we fare without a mod for a while. No mod between an abusive Admin and me? Bollocks to that. I'm gone too. I'm sorry to hear that. You'll be welcome back if you change your mind. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Sept 22, 2024 20:51:11 GMT
Don’t let Saint win, Mr Benn
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2024 20:52:16 GMT
Saint With respect you have sought most of the day to inflame what was clearly a sensitive situation. Shut up now please. I'll shut up when I see that my point has been understood (with respect). Petty personal personality politics. I'm so disappointed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2024 20:53:30 GMT
Without knowing who they are and why they said they left I cannot make any informed opinion. Because one man's heavy handed moderation is another man's preventing abuse or trolling. Some see criticism of the latter as heavy handed. So citing this without supplying source or evidence is stirring rather than informative in my view. Because I can make no judgement about who left and why without knowing. So throwing that in and leaving it hanging is most unhelpful. Anyway enough already, If I wake up in the morning feeling the same way about this site as I do now, I will be gone too. I said I'd find it after supper if you hadn't found it yourself by then. Have looked and cannot find it but dont bother anyway. I have dad a guts full of the petty bickering on here today. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 22, 2024 20:53:41 GMT
I'll shut up when I see that my point has been understood (with respect). Petty personal personality politics. I'm so disappointed. Look at Dappy's post preceding it. I'm sorry you're disappointed. As I said, we hope to see you back here sometime. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 22, 2024 20:54:22 GMT
I said I'd find it after supper if you hadn't found it yourself by then. Have looked and cannot find it but dont bother anyway. I have dad a guts full of the petty bickering on here today. Okay. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2024 20:57:03 GMT
Don’t let Saint win, Mr Benn I am logging out of this forum for the rest of the evening. Life is too short to waste on this bullshit. Thanks for your useful advice. I am going to heed it right now. Have a nice evening. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 22, 2024 20:58:09 GMT
Don’t let Saint win, Mr Benn I am logging out of this forum for the rest of the evening. Life is too short to waste on this bullshit. Thanks for your useful advice. I am going to heed it right now. Have a nice evening. Best wishes Benn. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Sept 22, 2024 21:06:29 GMT
Several regimes have tried to suppose they were communist but they all had the same flaws: (a) that the ruling elite didn't think it applied to them and (b) individuals lost all incentive to perform so the ruling elite resulted to threats. There's a reason why 'Cuba without the sun' is a critical comment. Yes, several regimes have presumed to institute communism. Much of what I know about Marx comes from what I read in a small book about him relatively recently. According to the author (whose name I've temporarily forgotten), no state has ever claimed to be communist. They have claimed to be socialist. I don't know if that is true, but it makes sense, since Marx said that a socialist state is a necessary gateway to communism itself. Now, of course, there are parties like the Chinese communist party. But they can be communists in the sense that they understand that a socialist state must precede a communist state. I totally agree that the ruling class in these so-called 'developing' communist states have been corrupt and self-serving. But that goes back to Marx's requirements for a successful communist state: a long and established history of democracy. As far as I'm aware, that hasn't been present. Orwell was very alive to your criticisms. As you know, he made exactly the same criticisms in Animal Farm. He was a dedicated communist himself. He didn't count Stalin's Russia as a communist state. He said that he had only ever seen one real communist community: that was while he was in Barcelona during the Spanish civil war. So can we agree that 'Socialism' spans many variants with these broad descriptions Baseline Socialism: Society incl its industries is regulated for the benefit of all and so provides a level of welfare for all who need it. Marxism: As above but additionally society takes ownership of all the means of production and distribution. Communism: As Marxism but additionally all private possession is sacrificed into communal ownership I'm a baseline socialism person |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 22, 2024 21:08:29 GMT
Yes, several regimes have presumed to institute communism. Much of what I know about Marx comes from what I read in a small book about him relatively recently. According to the author (whose name I've temporarily forgotten), no state has ever claimed to be communist. They have claimed to be socialist. I don't know if that is true, but it makes sense, since Marx said that a socialist state is a necessary gateway to communism itself. Now, of course, there are parties like the Chinese communist party. But they can be communists in the sense that they understand that a socialist state must precede a communist state. I totally agree that the ruling class in these so-called 'developing' communist states have been corrupt and self-serving. But that goes back to Marx's requirements for a successful communist state: a long and established history of democracy. As far as I'm aware, that hasn't been present. Orwell was very alive to your criticisms. As you know, he made exactly the same criticisms in Animal Farm. He was a dedicated communist himself. He didn't count Stalin's Russia as a communist state. He said that he had only ever seen one real communist community: that was while he was in Barcelona during the Spanish civil war. So can we agree that 'Socialism' spans many variants with these broad descriptions Baseline Socialism: Society incl its industries is regulated for the benefit of all and so provides a level of welfare for all who need it. Marxism: As above but additionally society takes ownership of all the means of production and distribution. Communism: As Marxism but additionally all private possession is sacrificed into communal ownership I'm a baseline socialism person Yes, socialism takes many forms. Even Engels and Marx disagreed on some points, so it comes as no surprise that we're not in entire agreement. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Sept 22, 2024 21:09:38 GMT
What are the main changes you'd make to those outline definitions
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 22, 2024 21:12:37 GMT
Yes, several regimes have presumed to institute communism. Much of what I know about Marx comes from what I read in a small book about him relatively recently. According to the author (whose name I've temporarily forgotten), no state has ever claimed to be communist. They have claimed to be socialist. I don't know if that is true, but it makes sense, since Marx said that a socialist state is a necessary gateway to communism itself. Now, of course, there are parties like the Chinese communist party. But they can be communists in the sense that they understand that a socialist state must precede a communist state. I totally agree that the ruling class in these so-called 'developing' communist states have been corrupt and self-serving. But that goes back to Marx's requirements for a successful communist state: a long and established history of democracy. As far as I'm aware, that hasn't been present. Orwell was very alive to your criticisms. As you know, he made exactly the same criticisms in Animal Farm. He was a dedicated communist himself. He didn't count Stalin's Russia as a communist state. He said that he had only ever seen one real communist community: that was while he was in Barcelona during the Spanish civil war. So can we agree that 'Socialism' spans many variants with these broad descriptions Baseline Socialism: Society incl its industries is regulated for the benefit of all and so provides a level of welfare for all who need it. Marxism: As above but additionally society takes ownership of all the means of production and distribution. Communism: As Marxism but additionally all private possession is sacrificed into communal ownership I'm a baseline socialism person That's a bloody good description in so few words. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 22, 2024 21:57:00 GMT
What are the main changes you'd make to those outline definitions Nothing much. I would only add that it's something of an oversimplification to talk of 'communism' (though, it's convenient and even necessary in a simple discussion such as this). Leninism, Marxism, Maoism, Trotskyism, etc., all offer different versions of communism. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Sept 22, 2024 23:51:09 GMT
Agreed but I did say I was using broad definitions.
My original point though was that it's very false to say Socialism means Communism. And many of those that do such are often being deliberately dishonest in doing so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 22, 2024 23:54:28 GMT
Agreed but I did say I was using broad definitions. My original point though was that it's very false to say Socialism means Communism. And many of those that do such are often being deliberately dishonest in doing so. I don't believe I said that socialism equals communism. And, yes, many who equate the two are often being deliberately dishonest. It's most common in the US, but not at all unheard of this side of the Atlantic. |
|
