Capitalist Pig
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
because there are no different opinions other than my own there isn't much reason to continue this thread. leave suggestions for a new thread if you'd like
mcolome1 wrote:In the Roman world, the word Dictatorship meant: Government. He loves his so called Republic, therefore, he should love the Roman Empire, is that the government that he want us to run ? I do not think that we want to run any type of goverment, we do not want any goverment at all. Goverment is just the instrument used by the governor against the governed. In the capitalist society we live under the dictatorship of the capitalist class Taken from WikipediaOriginally an emergency legal appointment in the Roman Republic, the term "Dictator" did not have the negative meaning it has now. A Dictator was a magistrate given sole power for a limited duration. At the end of the term, the Dictator's power returned to normal Consular rule whereupon a dictator provided accountability, though not all dictators accepted a return to power sharing.The term started to get its modern negative meaning with Cornelius Sulla's ascension to the dictatorship following Sulla's second civil war, making himself the first Dictator in more than a century (during which the office was ostensibly abolished) as well as de facto eliminating the time limit and need of senatorial acclamation, although he avoided a major constitutional crisis by resigning the office after about one year, dying a few years later. Julius Caesar followed Sulla's example in 49 BC and in February 44 BC was proclaimed Dictator perpetuo, "Dictator in perpetuity", officially doing away with any limitations on his power, which he kept until his assassination the following month.Following Julius' assassination, his heir Augustus was offered the title of dictator, but denied. Later successions also denied the title of dictator, with the usage of the title soon diminishing among Roman rulers.I do love the Roman Empire it was one of the greatest and most influential civilizations of all time. I don't think what you propose is a good idea because there won't be any buffer to prevent liberties from being abolished or infringed upon. Complete democratic rule sounds good to many people but with it anything can and will go with a majority vote however horrible or unreasonable.The purpose of this thread again is to dive into the implications of complete democratic rule or mob rule in communism and compare it to forms on government or 'administration' with legislation that limits the power of the majority and favors the individual. I think with you guys anarchy and democracy are pretty close together so just forget about anarchy.To put it really simply: should the form of government favor the majority at all costs or protect the minority/individual at all costs
robbo203 wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:strange that no one in this party has any idea what form of gorvernment they want or how to run it. everyones just saying burn everything down and everything will be fine. On one hand you will say you favor democracy then say you favor anarchism. Seems like you have no comcrete plan or idea of where to go if you were actually elected. You guys are very utopian, you think if you abolish the government people will act pecfectly and all have the same ideas and beliefs which would lead to a perfect society. The problem with that is that we have free will and are not a collective mob like ants or termites. Government is nessesary in society to keep order and stability, without a buffer to prevent people from commiting crimes or maintaining the law of the land there will be civil unrest and chaos. That is the only role of the government, to maintain law and order and prevent civil liberties from being violated in my opinion.now go ahead and say the same thing over and over againCP. Your criticism seems rather confused and contradictory. You want us to supply you with some idea of what form of government we want and then you complain that we want to abolish government! Which is it?You seem to be vacillating between different ideas of what a "government" actually means, That is why I asked you to define what you actually mean by government – do you mean a state or merely an adminsitration? We socialists certianly want to get rid of the state and so if you equate goverment wth the state, then socialism will be a society without government. However, in anthroplogy, the term government has sometimes been used in the context of stateless or "acephalous" societies – see for example Lucy Mair's book on "primitive government"In any event, the state is an institution of class rule and in a classless society a state clearly cannot exist, That does not mean in a stateless socialist society there will be just chaos or anarchy. You make a huge assumption here which is simply not justified. Indeed the anthropological study of stateless societies would refute your claim. If anything, chaos and anarchy is strongly associated with the power struggles that are endemic to class societies Socialism will provide the material conditions in which a much more transperant and cohesive sense of morality will emerge in my view, based on the clear recognition of our mutual interdependence. We do not need some external body in the guise of a state to maintain order and social harmony. We are quite capable of doing it ourselves and far more effectively than any class based statist society
I like the concept of communism but I don't see it happening practically without a state just like any other advanced society law and order brings stability but if there is none then its impossible. One thing is for sure though, unless you guys unite ideologically and stop demonizing eachother you won't be getting anywhere.
strange that no one in this party has any idea what form of gorvernment they want or how to run it. everyones just saying burn everything down and everything will be fine. On one hand you will say you favor democracy then say you favor anarchism. Seems like you have no comcrete plan or idea of where to go if you were actually elected. You guys are very utopian, you think if you abolish the government people will act pecfectly and all have the same ideas and beliefs which would lead to a perfect society. The problem with that is that we have free will and are not a collective mob like ants or termites. Government is nessesary in society to keep order and stability, without a buffer to prevent people from commiting crimes or maintaining the law of the land there will be civil unrest and chaos. That is the only role of the government, to maintain law and order and prevent civil liberties from being violated in my opinion.now go ahead and say the same thing over and over again
LBird wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:I have not read the book you mention but it is of interest to me and this conversation. I think the video primer I linked to is a good summary of my understanding of the fuzzy logic princples.The key political point being made here, Steve, is that 'logic' is a social product, and various 'logics' have been produced, including 'classical/traditional' and 'n-valued'.mod1 is using the usual conservative political trick to pretend that 'logic' is actually 'Logic', so that mod1's political logic is pretended to be 'Objective' and 'The Truth' and 'Eternal', and so can't be argued with.Within socialism, it would require a democratic vote by the producers to determine which 'logic' is employed in any intended social process of theory and practice, which produces social knowledge.So, 'logic' is not an ahistoric, asocial, 'truthful' process, which any individual or elite can simply use outside of the democratic control of the producers, but is an integral part of a political process.Any attempt to appeal to 'Logic' is a conservative political act, intended to hide its own ideological beliefs, and to denigrate the political stance towards which it is aimed.That is, one ideology's 'logic' is another's 'illogic', and vice versa. We must consciously choose our 'logic', and be aware of the political implications of our particular choice of a 'logic'.
logic is illogical
mcolome1 wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:THE RUSSIANS. I SPILLED MY COFFEE. THEY WERE BEHIND IT I JUST KNOW IT……Aren't you going to prove that there were ideological differences between the USA and the USSR ?
I can't even….
government, administration doesn't make a difference. At least you will give me your opinion instead of regurgitating propoganda and slogans. So why do you think majority rule is a good idea?
alan you will find that there are many similarities between jackson and trump if you want to ackowledge them. but that just comes to reading about jackson and comparing his times with our times. Trump may not have fought in vietnam but he was an officer in the millitary academy that we went to so don't try to portray him like mic romney
LBird wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:hi Lbiiiiiiiird. you are awesomeThanks for your appreciation, CP!Though, you should remember, that I'm criticising the SPGB from the political position of Democratic Communism, which is, I think, the opposite pole from your views.On the other threads, where you've challenged what the SPGB posters have been writing, on the whole I agree with them, and disagree with you.Most obviously, I'm not a supporter of 'bourgeois individualism', but of collective, democratic, social production, which includes the production of politics, laws, morals, laws of physics, logic, maths, truth and 'individuals'. These are all social products, and my political position is that Communism/Socialism equates to the democratic control of their production.Clearly, some here, claiming to be 'socialists', are actually politically closer to your 'individualism', than to my Democratic Communism.In fact, you're probably a better candidate for membership of the SPGB than I am!
fair enough
sounds nice but it means absolutely nothing. I'm just astonished by the unwillingness to even discuss the possiblilities of government or even make the case that no government would be nessesary. really shows how cut off from reality you are. sad.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The thing i find with politics is the lack of history. Everything is thought of as novel when a different label or cover is put on it…such as "fake news", for instance. Obviously, history doesn't repeat itself exactly but i think Marx was on to something when he suggested history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.Theodore Roosevelt was the outsider politician who became president = TrumpHenry Wallace was the "radical" who failed to become president = SandersI think other folk can contribute their own examplesdonald trump actually compares himself to andrew jackson and seems to admire him. There are many parallels
mcolome1 wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:mcolome1 wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:should we regret the bolshevik revolution…are you kidding me? 10s of millions dead and the emergance of one of the most oppressive states in modern history. its great that your so well educated in history but can you be a little less condecending?That is not the issue, I am responding to your message indicating that the Bolsheviks ( you should have said the leaders of the Soviet Union ) killed 10s millions ( you meant 100 ) of peoples . The argument is to show that there were not difference between the Soviet Union and the other capitalist powers, and before the Soviet started to kill human beings, the others capitalist powers had already killed millions of peoples, and during the period of the Cold War both blocks had the same objective and purposes. There were not any ideological differences among them, it was just an economical and geopolitical struggle, and the same analysis can be applied to World War II.
no difference between the ussr and the usa? hahaha good one
