Nebuchanezzar
Banned
Oh you think this is funny? You think this is funny? Well it's not funny, mmkay. How would you like it, mmkay, if I went home and squeezed out a fudge monkey on the face of your mother?kokodamonkey said:
"Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity" (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter youBROKEmyLIFE
- Start date
kokodamonkey
Active Member
lets get the boys to investigate.Nebuchanezzar said:
(for anyone totally lost, we are reenacting an episode from season10 of southpark)
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
The Hardly Boys! Two young whipper snappers...
...who loved communism
</THREAD>
...who loved communism
</THREAD>
ASNSWR127
Member
Bullshit.auerbach said:
look all around you at the mindless commercialism and spending and 'private' way of doing things.
That is influence right there.
Captain Hero
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 659
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
Commercialism is fucking retarded, but Capitalism is subjectively the 'best' method we have of wealth generation. 
-> Love unsubstantiated statements
-> Love unsubstantiated statements 
chriskoss
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 95
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Haha, so what do you call people who are addicted to gambling, who loose their homes, and their lifetime's work of being a good credit rating?. People who suicide because they can't pay their debts because they lost everything to gambling.sam04u said:
You must be a spastic if you think people think gambling is all for fun, and if they loose, they laugh and say oh well.
Clearly your some punk ass nerd kid who doesn't have the slightest clue about anything, its people like YOU who make forum's utterly stupid, pointless and rediculous, as most people who post know fuck all about the topic but want to see their little worthless opinions out their in the cyberworld in little writing so it can make them feel better about their own lives.
Lol to you
Zeitgeist308
Member
It seems to me you have some major confusion regarding the burden of proof. Firstly let us define the burden of proof.
If in some situation there is a proper presumption that something is true, anyone seeking to prove its opposite is said to bear the burden of proof. A certain amount of philosophical jockeying consists in trying to shift the burden of proof. - “burden of proof”, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy
In the common law, burden of proof is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in a legal action. More colloquially, burden of proof refers to an obligation in a particular context to defend a position against a prima facie other position. - "burden of proof", Wikipedia
Chiefly Law. the obligation to offer evidence that the court or jury could reasonably believe, in support of a contention, failing which the case will be lost - “burden of proof”, Dictionary.com
From the above, it is the party making the claim/presumption/assertion/allegation/contention which bears the burden of proof. Now we have established a definition of the burden of proof (assuming you do not object to it), the question is now: who has the burden of proof in this debate? The answer is quite simple: the party making the presumption/claim/assertion/allegation/contention. But now, which party is that party?
I did not start this thread. This thread was started for the purpose of allowing right-wingers to have a circle jerk and prove their superiority to the Marxist. Throughout the entire thread I have had little opportunity to argue the workability of communism, my main efforts being geared to the refutation of the various arguments made toward Marxist theory in all it's manifestations (with the exception of the philosophical). As such it would be foolish to say that (taken with reference to the entire thread) I have the burden of proof, since I have been on the defensive. I have been the negative pole responding to the 34 pages of argument thrown at me. However both you and I are not looking at the thread in it's entirety, rather we are focusing on the dialogue between each of us over the last 3 pages.
So the question is still unanswered: which party (in the debate between you and I) has the burden of proof? You actually provide the answer yourself:
You are claiming “Neither scientific socialism nor utopian socialism work in practice” and that Marxist theory is “pathetic and childish” and “based on the absurd and completely irrational”!
As such you bear the burden of proof!
The question of the belief in the existence of god(s) (just like that of the workability of communism or the correctness of Marxist analysis) can be answered with one (or two) of three potential positions. They are as follows:
I.A belief in the existence of god
II.A non-belief in the existence of god
III.A belief in the existence of god.
Positions I and III are explicit statements of belief. There is no difference (re the burden of proof) between saying “God does not exist” and “God exists”, both are explicit claims/presumptions/assertions/allegations/contentions as to the existence of god. This is why (just like theism) explicit atheism is illogical.
The same applies to you argument. In so far as you claim that “Neither scientific socialism nor utopian socialism work in practice” and that Marxist theory is “pathetic and childish” and “based on the absurd and completely illogical” you bear a burden of proof, without which you argument is fallacious. If you where to say to me “I do not believe communism can work”, “I do not adhere to the analysis taken by Marxist theory” or even “I do not believe the basis of Marxism to be logical”, you would not have the burden of proof upon yourself.
Now that we have closed the book on the issue of the burden of proof, unless you provide that proof we can discard your argument as logically falacious.
2. What do you define as the “state”? Utopian socialists do not believe in the establishment of a “state”.
3. Do you even know what “Utopian Socialism” is? It's been dead for over 150 years!
Marxists don't claim it works in theory hey? They may not say it directly, but read over your pages of debate and tell me if your discussion is about a real world system, or the theory of Marxism.refer? Marxists DO say it. If it doesn't work in practice, and you say you don't claim it works in theory...then where the hell does it work?
*Throws auerbach's original argument out of window due to logical fallaciousness *
However, communism refers both to a hypothetical future mode of production and to a political movement, not a political system. In so far as you are referring to communism as a political movement you are correct in saying it is “a set of beliefs that dictates an active path”, however you are arguing this, you are arguing that it is a political system, as such the above is not evidence for your case at all.
Finally, the characteristics you ascribe to what “communism preaches” are of mixed validity. Let us evaluate them one by one:
“ removal of classes”: Correct
“ removal of religion”: Half-Truth, religion can not be done away with overnight. Marxists hold that religion (like the state) will wither away when the conditions for it's existence cease (ie. Oppression and alienation)
“equal sharing of resources”: Incorrect, Marx used the slogan “to each according to their need” in the Critique of the Gotha Programme to describe the potential basis for the distribution of articles of consumption to the members of a communist society.
“heavy government involvement”: Half-Truth, the immediate aim of communists is the smahing of the bourgeois state, the seizure of political power by the working class, the confiscation of private property in the means of production and it's conversion into the common property of society as a whole with production and control over the means of production being exercised by the the society collectively through directly democratic organs such as factory committees and workers councils. In other words Marxist advocate the socialisation/communisation of the means of production by the workers state, however socialisation/communisation is not synonymous with nationalisation
“closed economies”: Incorrect, Marx was an advocate of free-trade. These things aren't hard to look up...
If in some situation there is a proper presumption that something is true, anyone seeking to prove its opposite is said to bear the burden of proof. A certain amount of philosophical jockeying consists in trying to shift the burden of proof. - “burden of proof”, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy
In the common law, burden of proof is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in a legal action. More colloquially, burden of proof refers to an obligation in a particular context to defend a position against a prima facie other position. - "burden of proof", Wikipedia
Chiefly Law. the obligation to offer evidence that the court or jury could reasonably believe, in support of a contention, failing which the case will be lost - “burden of proof”, Dictionary.com
From the above, it is the party making the claim/presumption/assertion/allegation/contention which bears the burden of proof. Now we have established a definition of the burden of proof (assuming you do not object to it), the question is now: who has the burden of proof in this debate? The answer is quite simple: the party making the presumption/claim/assertion/allegation/contention. But now, which party is that party?
I did not start this thread. This thread was started for the purpose of allowing right-wingers to have a circle jerk and prove their superiority to the Marxist. Throughout the entire thread I have had little opportunity to argue the workability of communism, my main efforts being geared to the refutation of the various arguments made toward Marxist theory in all it's manifestations (with the exception of the philosophical). As such it would be foolish to say that (taken with reference to the entire thread) I have the burden of proof, since I have been on the defensive. I have been the negative pole responding to the 34 pages of argument thrown at me. However both you and I are not looking at the thread in it's entirety, rather we are focusing on the dialogue between each of us over the last 3 pages.
So the question is still unanswered: which party (in the debate between you and I) has the burden of proof? You actually provide the answer yourself:
You are making the assertion!auerbach said:
You are claiming “Neither scientific socialism nor utopian socialism work in practice” and that Marxist theory is “pathetic and childish” and “based on the absurd and completely irrational”!
As such you bear the burden of proof!
Incorrect. You are making the assertions. Whether they are “positive” or “negative” is irrelevant and relativistic. In so far as you are taking the negative side explicitly you bear the burden of proof. You can be regarded as the defendant only in-so-far as you are you are taking the negative side implicitly. Let us take an example to elaborate on this:auerbach said:
This statement beautifully demonstrates your misunderstanding.auerbach said:
The question of the belief in the existence of god(s) (just like that of the workability of communism or the correctness of Marxist analysis) can be answered with one (or two) of three potential positions. They are as follows:
I.A belief in the existence of god
II.A non-belief in the existence of god
III.A belief in the existence of god.
Positions I and III are explicit statements of belief. There is no difference (re the burden of proof) between saying “God does not exist” and “God exists”, both are explicit claims/presumptions/assertions/allegations/contentions as to the existence of god. This is why (just like theism) explicit atheism is illogical.
The same applies to you argument. In so far as you claim that “Neither scientific socialism nor utopian socialism work in practice” and that Marxist theory is “pathetic and childish” and “based on the absurd and completely illogical” you bear a burden of proof, without which you argument is fallacious. If you where to say to me “I do not believe communism can work”, “I do not adhere to the analysis taken by Marxist theory” or even “I do not believe the basis of Marxism to be logical”, you would not have the burden of proof upon yourself.
Now that we have closed the book on the issue of the burden of proof, unless you provide that proof we can discard your argument as logically falacious.
1. What do you define as “worked”? A number of communes and other such small-scale experiments (and yes, in this case they were “experiments”) were established by Utopian Socialists during the 18th and 19th Century.auerbach said:
2. What do you define as the “state”? Utopian socialists do not believe in the establishment of a “state”.
3. Do you even know what “Utopian Socialism” is? It's been dead for over 150 years!
Well that's a question of how you define “successful”. I would argue not only that there have never been any “successful socialist states” but that there have never even been any socialist states. Others such Anti-Revisionists (Stalinists), Maoists, Titoists and Castroites would disagree).auerbach said:
Marxists don't claim it works in theory hey? They may not say it directly, but read over your pages of debate and tell me if your discussion is about a real world system, or the theory of Marxism.refer? Marxists DO say it. If it doesn't work in practice, and you say you don't claim it works in theory...then where the hell does it work?
You too, that was a great argument...auerbach said:
*Throws auerbach's original argument out of window due to logical fallaciousness *
Please, don't act dumb. It was not a mere coincidence you placed them side by side. Why don't we read your original statement again:auerbach said:
You are directly implying that Communism is synonymous with the more general for of political dictatorship. It is only subsequently when you realised that we were speaking of different things did you try to go back on your original point.auerbach said:
This does not place the burden of proof on yourself. Despite this, would you care to elaborate as to why, just out of curiosity?auerbach said:
Why!? You have not explained this. And no, the burden of proof is not on me this time. You are the one making the claim, you are the one that needs to prove it.auerbach said:
I have no interest in doing so as I'm not arguing that case.auerbach said:
Neither capitalism nor communism preach anything; they are modes of production. That is of course, unless you're telling me an historical stage defined by specific combination between the productive forces of society and the relations of production can preach?auerbach said:
However, communism refers both to a hypothetical future mode of production and to a political movement, not a political system. In so far as you are referring to communism as a political movement you are correct in saying it is “a set of beliefs that dictates an active path”, however you are arguing this, you are arguing that it is a political system, as such the above is not evidence for your case at all.
Finally, the characteristics you ascribe to what “communism preaches” are of mixed validity. Let us evaluate them one by one:
“ removal of classes”: Correct
“ removal of religion”: Half-Truth, religion can not be done away with overnight. Marxists hold that religion (like the state) will wither away when the conditions for it's existence cease (ie. Oppression and alienation)
“equal sharing of resources”: Incorrect, Marx used the slogan “to each according to their need” in the Critique of the Gotha Programme to describe the potential basis for the distribution of articles of consumption to the members of a communist society.
“heavy government involvement”: Half-Truth, the immediate aim of communists is the smahing of the bourgeois state, the seizure of political power by the working class, the confiscation of private property in the means of production and it's conversion into the common property of society as a whole with production and control over the means of production being exercised by the the society collectively through directly democratic organs such as factory committees and workers councils. In other words Marxist advocate the socialisation/communisation of the means of production by the workers state, however socialisation/communisation is not synonymous with nationalisation
“closed economies”: Incorrect, Marx was an advocate of free-trade. These things aren't hard to look up...
What is this even meant to mean?auerbach said:
Last edited:
Matt1120
Basically a History Nerd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2007
- Messages
- 206
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
At the risk of Zeitgeist writing an essay at me...
"Better Dead than Red"
"Better Dead than Red"
You really think so? That's a fairly extreme ideology you've got there, by the sounds of things. I mean, I'm sure Marx definitely would have accepted it's better to live in a capitalist society than to die.Matt1120 said:
ASNSWR127
Member
NO essay needs to be written.Matt1120 said:
what a waste of a statement.
I wouldn't take Zeitgeist writing an essay at me as a trial - I would embrace it, he is obviously well read and intelligent. We can all learn much off him. Whilst Zeitgeist and my own views may differ somewhat I certainly realise that he can defend and put forward his position better than many people I have met on most topics throughout my life.
I am a social democrat (left wing but not to quite the extreme) but if such a "dictatorship of the proletariat" were to exist I would infinitely prefer it to the current climate of mindless spending, commercialism and poverty for most of the world.
Matt1120
Basically a History Nerd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2007
- Messages
- 206
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
ASNSWR127 said:
I have nothing against Zeitgeists knowledge on the subject, I have learnt a lot from reading his responses, I just knew that such a statement wouldn't be taken well lol.
Cookie182
Individui Superiore
My argments have ceased as I was satisfied with the way Zeigetist answered my Q. In fact, despite having extremely different views, I do applaude his argument style and are shocked that he can write so well and only be in year 11.
Law school for you i say!
Law school for you i say!
moll.
Learn to science.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,545
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Hey, would the Soviet Union really have been that much better off if Trotsky had won his power struggle with the Man of Steel?
I'm sure this or something similar has been asked on this thread before, but i wasn't here and can't be bothered looking for it, so if i could get an answer or at least a referral to the post where it was answered, that'd be great.
I'm sure this or something similar has been asked on this thread before, but i wasn't here and can't be bothered looking for it, so if i could get an answer or at least a referral to the post where it was answered, that'd be great.
Matt1120
Basically a History Nerd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2007
- Messages
- 206
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
1 last q for anyone who knows, completely off topic as well. Was Engels of the aristocracy or the Bourgeoisie? I know he wasnt a prole but i dont trust wikipedia on it becuase it has lied to me before:angry:
ASNSWR127
Member
Marx and Engels were too of the most bourgeios of the bourgeios there ever were!Matt1120 said:
Didn't stop them thinking like they did though!
ASNSWR127
Member
Because it wasn't a good statement? lolMatt1120 said:
Matt1120
Basically a History Nerd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2007
- Messages
- 206
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Yeah pretty much lolASNSWR127 said: