About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 7:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

There's a point being missed in the debate here. And that is the intellectual status -- today -- of communism. At one time, perhaps one could be a communist without a constant and mentally destructive process of self-blinding. In my mind, that time passed with the Hitler-Stalin Pact. But certainly today, with the abject failure of communism around the globe, with the proof that it created suffering and death on a scale unknown in human history, with the piles of bodies it left behind as evidence of its presence, there can be no such thing as an honest communist. Communists are the spiritual equivalent of Flat Earthers; they are madmen ranting that they are Napoleon.

Byron, I agree with you that men -- but I would add "most men" -- will change their ideas, or some of their ideas, if they hear reasonable arguments. But I do not agree that this is true of the Napoleons of this world. They do not advocate their ideas for reasons which they can pretend even to themselves make sense. They have become ridiculous.

Barbara

Post 21

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 8:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, Sarah - is why recommended the book, because - believe me - reading Marx is a trial and tribulation... :-) almost like reading Finnegan's Wake......

Post 22

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 8:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara says: They do not advocate their ideas for reasons which they can pretend even to themselves make sense. They have become ridiculous.


That was great! I imagined it scrolling across the LewRockwell website!

George


Post 23

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 12:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara et al., I agree with you to a large extent.  Understand that I am not saying one would sway the leader of the USA's communist party.  I am saying that debating with (or in front of) mistaken people of college age can be a valuable - and perhaps even necessary - task if Objectivism's (or even capitalism's) ideas are going to be spread.  Those who are aware of communism's failures and evade them are some of the same people feeding wrong info - or glossing over communism's record - to the students such a debate would be in front of.

Jason


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 6:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am curious as to how the debate went.

I agree with Barbara - maybe something like this would have been better if it were staged by the anthropology department.

Believe it or not - Brazil has an active Communist party that actually elects government members. It is funny though. It no longer has anything to do with normal Communism.

The present President (Lula) was elected by the Workers Party, which has always had the backing of the Communist party (but not as formally this time around). It is strange that his Vice President belongs to the Brazilian equivalent of the Libertarian Party.

Sometimes I really miss Brazil...

Michael


Post 25

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 8:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Remember who the Communist Party of the USA backed in the election?

Post 26

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 6:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah,

Because the debate is being held in American soil, and America is the one of the "staunchest" adovocates of capitalism, and the epicenter of anti-communist movements(though democrasy allows the existence of a communist leader...), ask how communism would better replace democrasy in America, and how it would help America.

Tell us how it turned out!

-Andrew


Post 27

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 8:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
ABAH,

Well, I'm not really sure why you addressed this to me but...

I suspect you'd get an answer involving some incarnation of social democracy or democratic socialism. As to how it would help, there are the standard answers of freeing the proletariat from bourgeois control, etc.

Sarah

Post 28

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 9:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am curious to know how this went Nicole.

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 29

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 3:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Everyone:

     I am truly apologetic for not getting back here earlier to update you on how the event went. I have been away from the internet for the last few days doing some work. I'm not going to lie... it was kinda nice to do some work without it. ;o)

Next... I don't think I ever would have skipped this debate to avoid giving them a platform. People should be "out" as Capitalists and show that we do exist, and that we were proud of it. I know that if we did not show up, the Commies wouldn't think it would be because we were not trying to give them a platform... they would think that it was because we were admitting defeat. Besides, I'm not afraid of a little hostile territory. I live in it everyday! Clarence: We know what we believe about Communism, but not everyone has had that "Anthem" moment. It is good for others to see how easily a Communist's arguments can be ground into the dirt. I went not only for myself, but also for the 10 or so of my hallmates that went along. They would not have if I did not bring it up to them. Seeing their reactions, and knowing what learning experience they went through would have been worth it by itself. They have never heard Capitalism presented in this way! I went also because of that. I didn't go because I thought I'd change the Commie's mind. That would be irrational. No doubt you're right in that observation. I prefer to find the rational things that I could do in order to respond to his irrational ideas. It's wrong to give evil like that a pass.

 Anywho... let me try and give you an overview of the evening. First of all, the small auditorium where the event was held was packed. I mean, people were overflowing into the aisles and sitting in the stairways. I thought that was pretty great. As I predicted, the air was electric with anticipation. Good grief... how often does one get to see a Commie? (Or at least one who's "out of the closet" and upfront with their beliefs. At least he was that.)

First of all, there was an introduction by the leader of the Phi Kappa literary society as to the background of the event. (I covered that in my original post... it is a very interesting story.) The USA Communist party leader (Halabi) was to speak first. His speciality within the party is Economics. As a personal observation, Halabi's voice was weak and shaky. He was quite an old man, and although he seemed very convinced of his beliefs, he seemed to be absent of any life force. That is what struck me most about the man as I heard him speak. He quoted tables that showed how much the U.S. influences poverty, how we let our own starve, how so many in the world live off of $1 a day or less... how so many are harmed by Capitalism... basically, he gave all of the sob stories that any good Marxist would spew in this situation. He even spoke of the Delta stewardesses on the flight here and how they were being hurt by Delta because their pensions were being lessoned. It was mostly Marxist rhetoric, some sob stories about the poor starving children, how it was all caused by greed, and there were a ton of statistics. *yawn*. Heard it all before. His ending point was that human society would not exist if not for "cooperation", and that we should start a revolution for our "brothers and sisters". Couldn't wait for the UGA Economics professor to speak.

Dwight Little is a professor that I have never had. But judging from the applause he got from the crowd, he's a popular guy in the business department. What struck me most about this man was his sense of life. He was full of humor, and was totally sure of every word he said. I was worried that the defender of Capitalism in this debate would be light on it, and not extol it's virtues in the best way... but he said, and I quote: "I don't think the problem in the Third World is too much Capitalism... the problem is, there's not enough!" He spoke of corrupt governments being at fault for poverty because they do not allow free markets to "work their miracles." (Yes! He called it a miracle! As if it was good or something! It's just not something one would be used to hearing on this campus. ;o) He spoke of how the USSR could not distribute its own resources because it is almost impossible to satisfy human need without free markets. He even chastised the U.S. for its agri-subsidies. I think he did make both a moral and a practical case for Capitalism. I was thinking about Ayn Rand the whole time. He might as well have been right out of "Atlas Shrugged." I don't think I can give someone much higher praise than that. I am not exaggerating. He ripped Mr. Commie to shreds. And he ended his speech to roaring applause... and a few catcalls! ;o)

During the question and answer portion (my question was not chosen... damn it. My only complaint.) there were some idiotic questions (How do you reconcile companies laying off so many people? Isn't Capitalism just a culture of greed? Shouldn't we all just work together? Little answered them perfectly.) but there was one question that sticks out to me still. Halabi was asked, "What would have to happen in order to start a Communist revolution?" His stammering and incoherent answer was a cover for the fact that not even he could tell this room full of potential extraordinary human beings that Marx thought that people should be violently killed in an uprising against the producers... most of whom are our own parents, and one day us. Yeah... that was pretty great.

Let's just say... by the end, I was grinning ear-to-ear. And I think any aspiring Commies in the audience had something to think about as they walked home that night.

I am sorry that this response came so late! I hope it gives you what you wanted to hear! Let me know if you want any specifics. They spoke of many interesting issues.

And Jason... if I had known about it any earlier, I would have told you in a second! It did not show up in the paper until the day of. They need a new marketing department. I am shamed! ;o) Next time they do something like it (which judging by its success... they will) I shall let you know.

I was also happy to read all of the discussion that has followed my post. Thanks ya'll! Good luck to everyone who is reading Marx for the first time. You'll need a good shower after every paragraph. Ick.

~Nicki T.


Post 30

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 11:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
...Marx thought that people should be violently killed in an uprising against the producers...

Just as a clarifying note, I believe Marx said that the violence would come about through self-defence and that the capitalists would initiate violence because the proletariat were cutting into profits too much, or something like that. I think he also said that violence would be inevitable because the owners of capital would not freely give it up when the prols united, etc.

Perhaps the factory owners of Marx's time would have used force to ensure profit, but that certainly wouldn't be invoked by capitalism as I know it today.

Post 31

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 1:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah:
 Perhaps I should have wrote "might be violently killed in a proletariat uprising in some cases." But I don't think there's any doubt that Marx thought that blood and violence would be necessary in the change to Communism. As wealth became more concentrated in the hands of a few capitalists, he thought, the ranks of an increasingly dissatisfied proletariat would swell, leading to bloody revolution and eventually a classless society.

As far as it happening today, I think that there are still some in organized labor who are willing to harm their bosses and the "owners of production" when they feel that they are wronged or in danger. It's a reason that many within those systems fear leaving them or disobeying so much. I don't think that some in the working/industrial class are too far from drawing blood for their beliefs.

I apologize for the vagueness of that line. I did not scrutinize it because it was not the true point of my post. I hope you enjoyed the rest of it nonetheless.

~NT.


Post 32

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 6:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nicole,

I agree that Marx was sure about violence, and there probably are groups today that would violently revolt, but I don't think they, or anyone in the past, would/has revolted in the context that Marx intended. Regardless, saying that force is necessary is, to me, ridiculous.

And I did enjoy the post, thanks for posting it.

Sarah

Post 33

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 7:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah,

     I never said that I thought it was necessary... I know you'd have to kill me to slip the system in... but that's something else entirely...

My point was that this man, Halabi, could not admit that violence, a "bloody revolution", was part of what his favorite philosopher said would happen in this change. It seemed that he was actively trying to avoid saying it, when he knew that we all knew what Marx said about the transition. If he actually believed that force was not needed, he could have talked about the pretty bunnies and sunshine, and the dancing around the oak tree that he believed would happen as we became Communist. But he didn't say that. He did not answer the question.

I don't think the thought of force being necessary is quite ridiculous, again. There are many people who you would have to fight to get them to accept this.

~NT


Post 34

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 10:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lenin and Stalin, for example, pointed out that necessity of violence in achieving the communistic aim...

Post 35

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 10:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Maybe I've just being vague. Nicole, I'm not claiming you've said what you say I said you said.

The only reason I posted what I did was to clarify that the context of Marx's revolution wasn't just, "Welp, let's go kill us some capitalists." The revolution was supposed to be a self-defensive action. That is, however, not how it has been implemented in reality. It's just important to me that the facts are straight.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.