Which persuasion?

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Which persuasion?

#21  Postby Matthew Shute » Sep 13, 2017 12:08 am

Imagine if the true Scotsmen communists could seize power and attempt to implement communism for real, though. We'd be on our way to the classless and stateless utopia by now. The people reluctant to play along could be... encouraged somehow (and surely without the need for any unfortunate oppression). Totalitarianism? Gosh no. Censorship, persecution, gulags and reeducation camps? Don't be silly. And there won't be tens of millions killed next time. True communists; incorruptible, pure and proper communists; communists of vision and enlightenment who only have The PeopleTM 's best interests at heart: that's what we need, comrades! We'll know them when we see them. They'll tell us that they're not like the others, those fake communists of the past. The new communists will be the sincere ones. They will be true intellectuals who understand how to make the omelette without breaking all the eggs. The previous so-called communists who took power didn't understand or didn't take account of human nature fully; they didn't understand economics in a complete enough way; they were insincere and corruptible, or else they were stabbed in the back by those who were. Unlike the communists to come, that is. The revolution will not be betrayed next time, comrades! The regrettable mistakes of the past won't happen next time! Next time...

"Change will preserve us. It is the lifeblood of the Isles. It will move mountains! It will mount movements!" - Sheogorath
User avatar
Matthew Shute
 
Name: Matthew Shute
Posts: 3676
Age: 41

Antarctica (aq)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Which persuasion?

#22  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Sep 13, 2017 6:33 am

To whom is the above straw-man adressed?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30233
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Which persuasion?

#23  Postby Zadocfish2 » Sep 13, 2017 7:20 am

Well, your last couple of posts were juuuuust skirting around the "no true Scotsman" fallacy in regards to communism. If not directly falling into them. The point is, it just doesn't work when people try to put it into practice. It WAS put into effect in Russia and China, it just didn't work because fascism... and frankly, if you try communism, you get fascism. I tried to explain why, but with too few details.

That is, it involves mass distribution according to government mandates.


Does it? Citations?


Here's a better solution: you (or anyone else, really) try to figure out a way to give everyone equal access to everything everyone produces without a system of mandates and distribution in place.

What constitutes to much central power?


I think "everything being run through and distributed by the government" is too much central power. Capitalism relies a lot on private enterprises and, by extension, the concept of private ownership. Even then, the government often has to intervene to keep things (relatively) fair. Communism doesn't rely on private ownership of anything... everything is public-use. So how do they make sure that everyone has equal access? There needs to be a central authority to guide who gets how much, when, and how often, otherwise the "equality" that communism promises can't exist. The selfish nature of humanity leads to hoarding, to rackets, and to all that manner of things unless there's a force to keep it in check. But the central authority itself is subject to that nature, and since every resource in the country has to be directly managed by the government to assure that everything is kept "fair"... do you see the problem yet?
User formerly known as Falconjudge.

I am a Christian.
User avatar
Zadocfish2
 
Name: Justin
Posts: 608
Age: 28
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Which persuasion?

#24  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 13, 2017 7:30 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:To whom is the above straw-man adressed?


To the fellow who insists it hasn't ever really (really-o, truly-o) been implemented:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Zadocfish2 wrote: It is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to implement on a significant scale.

I don't think we can reasonably say that because afaik it's never really been attempted.


That is (of course) because there isn't an instruction manual for implementing it correctly (according to whom?)

At some point, Thomas, you will acquire some recognition that robotically claiming to have identified fallacies in other people's arguments only saves you the trouble of constructing one yourself. You could at least explain the details of the fallacy you claim someone has committed, instead of simply naming it, which convinces no one that you've even correctly identified a fallacy in someone else's argument. Incidentally, the "no true Scotsman" is, among other things about the Really-o, Truly-o, which of course, does not present itself. Besides that, no one but you is going to give the smallest fuck about the fallacies you robotically claim to have identified without your accompanying analysis of them. Naming fallacies without an accompanying analysis comes off looking like nothing more than an attempt to silence your interlocutor.

To be fair, Randian objectivism hasn't ever really been implemented either, because it is nothing but a fictional plot device.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Sep 13, 2017 7:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Lou Kleener
Posts: 28775
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Which persuasion?

#25  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Sep 13, 2017 7:32 am

Zadocfish2 wrote:Well, your last couple of posts were juuuuust skirting around the "no true Scotsman" fallacy in regards to communism. If not directly falling into them.

You'd have to actually demonstrate that, not just assert.
Afaik dictatorships are antithetical to communism. As is statism.

Zadocfish2 wrote: The point is, it just doesn't work when people try to put it into practice. It WAS put into effect in Russia and China, it just didn't work because fascism...

Which is antithetical to communism, hence it's not a true scotsman fallacy to point out that what was implemented in Russia and China, was not communism.
Certainly not as Marx and Engels envisioned/defined it.


Zadocfish2 wrote:and frankly, if you try communism, you get fascism. I tried to explain why, but with too few details.

Yes, I would appreciate it if you can demonstrate a casaul link.
Note: I'm not claiming it is definitely possible to succesfully implement communism, it could very well be an impossibility based on human flaws.
My point is that, just as with liberalism, people have abused the label to institute systems that run contrary to the ideology they claim to uphold.

I also have not claimed or insinuated that communism is great or idyllic or whatever straw-men were erected at the top of this page.

Zadocfish2 wrote:
That is, it involves mass distribution according to government mandates.


Does it? Citations?


Here's a better solution: you (or anyone else, really) try to figure out a way to give everyone equal access to everything everyone produces without a system of mandates and distribution in place.

I don't have to.
You claim communism = mass distribution according to government mandates.
When in fact it's all about community control, not government.
Again, not saying this can be achieved in reality.

Zadocfish2 wrote:
What constitutes to much central power?

I think "everything being run through and distributed by the government" is too much central power.

It's also not communism.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30233
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Which persuasion?

#26  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 13, 2017 7:34 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Zadocfish2 wrote: The point is, it just doesn't work when people try to put it into practice. It WAS put into effect in Russia and China, it just didn't work because fascism...

Which is antithetical to communism, hence it's not a true scotsman fallacy to point out that what was implemented in Russia and China, was not communism.
Certainly not as Marx and Engels envisioned/defined it.


Ah, the instruction manual. The bible. You have to ask yourself how you decided that such a system can be implemented. It can be written down, sure. You've no doubt heard the term 'vaporware'. So much for tracts of political philosophy.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Sep 13, 2017 7:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Lou Kleener
Posts: 28775
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Which persuasion?

#27  Postby Thommo » Sep 13, 2017 7:36 am

Matthew Shute wrote:
felltoearth wrote:So many rabbit holes, so little time.


Is it possible for delusional people to go down rabbit holes tangential to their original delusion? Well, :nod:


There's even a technical term for it. A warren. :shifty:
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26631

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Which persuasion?

#28  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Sep 13, 2017 7:37 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:To whom is the above straw-man adressed?


To the fellow who insists it hasn't ever really (really-o, truly-o) been implemented:

I'm waiting for the author to confirm, but if it is, it's a ludicrous straw-men.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Zadocfish2 wrote: It is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to implement on a significant scale.

I don't think we can reasonably say that because afaik it's never really been attempted.


That is (of course) because there isn't an instruction manual for implementing it correctly (according to whom?)

At some point, Thomas, you will acquire some recognition that robotically claiming to have identified fallacies in other people's arguments only saves you the trouble of constructing one yourself. You could at least explain the details of the fallacy you claim someone has committed, instead of simply naming it, which convinces no one that you've even correctly identified a fallacy in someone else's argument. Incidentally, the "no true Scotsman" is, among other things about the Really-o, Truly-o, which of course, does not present itself. Besides that, no one but you is going to give the smallest fuck about the fallacies you robotically claim to have identified without your accompanying analysis of them.

To be fair, Randian objectivism hasn't ever really been implemented either, because it is nothing but a fictional plot device.

Ah more of the vapid trolling you so often devolve to.
The above wall of text not only does not adress what I actually posted, it also misrepresents my contributions in other threads.
In most if not all cases, I do actually explain/demonstrate how someone is presenting a fallacious argument.
The times when I don't is usually because it's already been pointed out and my interlocutor is just regurgitating the same fallacy over and over, whilst failing to adress my rebuttal or those of others.

Now, you'll no doubt can't resist the urge to come out from under the bride again, to post more vacuous nonsense.
As far as I am concerned it'll only affect you.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30233
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Which persuasion?

#29  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Sep 13, 2017 7:37 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Zadocfish2 wrote: The point is, it just doesn't work when people try to put it into practice. It WAS put into effect in Russia and China, it just didn't work because fascism...

Which is antithetical to communism, hence it's not a true scotsman fallacy to point out that what was implemented in Russia and China, was not communism.
Certainly not as Marx and Engels envisioned/defined it.


Ah, the instruction manual. The bible. You have to ask yourself how you decided that such a system can be implemented. It can be written down, sure. You've no doubt heard the term 'vaporware'. So much for tracts of political philosophy.

QED.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30233
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Which persuasion?

#30  Postby Zadocfish2 » Sep 13, 2017 8:59 am

When in fact it's all about community control, not government.


Please understand that this is precisely what a government IS. It's the method by which communities control themselves. And in communism, there needs to be a controlling force. Once you get over a couple hundred or so people together, in an industrialized society, local community leaders without enforcement ability simply cannot accomplish much in terms of governance. At that point, or a bit above, there needs to be a proper structure.

That's the hurdle over which communism falls and breaks both of its legs. A country-sized nation cannot exist, logistically, without a government; there needs to be a structure, and in communism, that structure is given control of the entire economy and, thus, the populace.

I think "everything being run through and distributed by the government" is too much central power.

It's also not communism.


The reason that kind of system pops up in countries attempting communism is because it is LITERALLY the only way that the system can potentially work.

To put in the simplest way possible, for something to exist in a useful way in the modern world, somebody or something must control it. A factory without managers or workers is a useless hunk of metal. If private individuals and enterprises cannot control goods, services, and land by themselves, then the de facto controllers of those things are those who are in charge of ensuring that they're used fairly and properly. Those in charge of those things, whatever label the controllers would go by, would inevitably be a government. This means that the government is in full control of the entire economy. And that is the root and lifeblood of a dictatorship.

Do you see the causal relationship there yet? If everything is owned by everybody, it is effectively owned by the organizers. The organizers have absolute power. Absolute power leads directly to fascism.
User formerly known as Falconjudge.

I am a Christian.
User avatar
Zadocfish2
 
Name: Justin
Posts: 608
Age: 28
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Which persuasion?

#31  Postby DavidMcC » Sep 13, 2017 11:50 am

zulumoose wrote:...
Atlas Shrugged

I hope that doesn't mean that the world has fallen off his shoulders! :o
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 66
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest