"Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity" (1 Viewer)

[auerbach]

I don't think you should look too hard.

Adv English is all about looking into things that don't matter a damn (imaginative journey's) and then trying to make absolute BS up while trying to maintain a straight face.

Zeitgeist is in effect too smart to do well in Adv English

Zeitgeist isn't too smart to do well in anything, perhaps not smart enough. If you actually read what he's been saying you'll soon see that he argues ad-hominem far too regularly and he centralises his entire debate around small points that bear no weight on the topic at hand. The notion that his level of language is sophisticated is certainly put to the test if you read some of his posts. Zeitgeist is the sort of person that I can easily see desperately clutching at spelling mistakes and grammar errors in the hope of resucitating his inherrently flawed argument. He is not smart he is simply idealistic and outspoken (features often confused with intelligence by the unsuspecting).

 

[auerbach]

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 making the assertion!
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!

I hope nobody is falling for this rubbish. Honestly you have just devoted a huge amount of space to arguing who has the burden of proof. You mustn't have much confidence left in your argument. Discard the entire thread, we aren't discussing it anymore...you know that. I DO NOT bear the burden of proof in the overall thesis that communism, Marxism etc. do not work in practice. To assume so is simply nit-picking and academic and it does not look at the facts. To say that communism doesn't work, does not require me to "prove" it. How does one prove that communism doesn't work? I could indeed provide a list of countries as I've offered, which would definitely "suggest" communism doesn't work, but it wouldn't "prove" anything. If on the other hand, you were to provide one solid example of communism's successful functionality then yes, we would have to say that communism works in practice. The burden of proof in this argument is inexorably in your hands. In essence I am arguing communism doesn't work, you are arguing communism works, right? My assertion of childish, irrational, pathetic etc. is in rebuttal to the prospect of communism ever working. It's childish, irrational and pathetic BECAUSE it doesn't work, and the proof is in the pudding. There aren't any successful communist countries in the world. You know that has been the point at hand, but in an attempt to avoid the truth you have veiled the fallacy of your argument with verbose semantics regarding who must prove what. Let's face it, if you think communism can ever work in practice, you must provide the evidence. Forget what Oxford and Wikipedia say (which you have warped to fit your argument) and just face the facts, prove communism has ever worked in practice. Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Old Poland etc. are my proofs that it doesn't work if you really want something you can call "evidence" but I maintain, that such a list is not necessary in the argument of communism's "workability" as you call it. The burden of proof lies with the affirmative, and if the affirmative can not prove anything, then communism is indeed a childish and pathetic excuse for a political system.

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:

Again with semantics, "communism works" is your assersion. Surely you can see this claim needs much more evidence and proof, than my claim of communism's not working. Yet I am the only one to put forward examples of it not working.

This statement beautifully demonstrates your misunderstanding.

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.

I've been scrolling a while...and still with semantics. By the way, you're wrong. You are missing the point of my argument completely. I'm not sure if it's due to ignorance or something more sinister, either way I'll continue. It is based on the absurd and irrational BECAUSE it doesn't work. The hope and dream of a functioning communist nation is absurd and irrational, because well...it's impossible (i.e. Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba). And your claim that "god does not exist" requires as much proof as "god exists" is absolutely obscence. "The magic of Harry Potter is only ever going to work in fiction". According to you, this is an explicit statement that needs proof and evidence. People that believe that the magic works in practice (I'm sure there are some) are not the negative, or the defensive. Just because I make that statement first doesn't make me affirmative, it calls into line the need for the "magicists" to provide evidence of Avada Kedavra killing someone in the real world. Just as the statement "god does not exist" doesn't require me to prove his non-existence, and "communism does not work" doesn't require me to prove its non-functionability. Rather theists must provide evidence of creation, and communsits must provide evidence of communism's success.

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.

We have indeed closed the book on the issue of the burden of proof, and I await your proof with great anticipation.

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.
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!

1. I can not believe it! Still with pathetic semantics! 'What do you define as "worked"?' I mean if this is what your using to support your dying argument, then really it's game over. Worked means worked: a free and functioning, prosperous society where people are not denied their rights and the incentive to succeed is blatant and rewarded. Worked means a system that best caters to the need of its inhabitants with minimal poverty, crime, illiteracy etc.
2. Unbelievable 'What do you define as the "state"' By state I mean sovereign nation.
3. Yes...So what?

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).

All that needs to be done with this argument is to highlight it. Are you happy that your argument has decayed to a definition of successful? Successful means a place that you would be happy to live in and raise your children in. Successful may also mean the best possible alternative to perfection. Successful means similar to "worked" as defined above. "there have never been any socialist states" you just contradicted your entire argument. You have proved to the masses that you are indeed saying communism works in theory. You couldn't claim it works in practice because you yourself have said there are no examples. Like I said before, and will discuss in a second. You claim that communism works in theory, but you may as well claim that dictatorship works in theory, for in theory a dictatorship works.

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?

"there have never been any socialist states" ergo, you are arguing that it works in theory, quite obviously not in practice. There's your reference.

You too, that was a great argument...

*Throws auerbach's original argument out of window due to logical fallaciousness *

hmmm

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:



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.

I placed them deliberately side by side, because they are the proverbial political poles. Extreme left wing v. Extreme right wing. The natural enemy of communism is dictatorship, so I'm simply saying that by claiming it works in theory is stupid, because "the others" can use the same argument. I am not directly implying that communism is synonymous with a political dictatorship, but now that you've invited me to, I will. In practice the two are very similar.

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?

“ 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...

I don't care what Marx was an advocate of, you are again arguing for communism IN THEORY. Look at the communist countries of the world and see if they are open.

 

[ASNSWR127]

Zeitgeist isn't too smart to do well in anything, perhaps not smart enough. If you actually read what he's been saying you'll soon see that he argues ad-hominem far too regularly and he centralises his entire debate around small points that bear no weight on the topic at hand. The notion that his level of language is sophisticated is certainly put to the test if you read some of his posts. Zeitgeist is the sort of person that I can easily see desperately clutching at spelling mistakes and grammar errors in the hope of resucitating his inherrently flawed argument. He is not smart he is simply idealistic and outspoken (features often confused with intelligence by the unsuspecting).

No that is not case

If YOU read back (and any future posts) you will discover that Zeitgeist is a very well read and highly articulate individual.

You will find that he disagrees with your way of thinking but he is certainly intelligent (features often confused with being stupid by the unsuspecting).

I disagree with a lot that Zeitgeist says (as I am social-democratic sort of person) but I would certainly enjoy debating with him more than many people as he knows his history and he can certainly back what he is saying with close and constant reference to the set ideology he is putting forward.

Attacking his (obvious) intelligence is not the way to debase or win this argument and you should not have attempted to do so.

 

[44Ronin]

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.

I'm not right wing. I even reject the wing model and the complete party system. I'm a cynic of predetermined political ideology in all it's forms and believe communism/socialism is probably the most flawed ideology that exists today.

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).

The issue is not whether it works or not, but whether it is a better system than the one we have now. In explaining my opinion I have to attack the various manifestations. It is only of your denial that you are actually unwilling to accept criticism of marxism.

The biggest issue is that communism limits peoples expression of their own political leanings. Communism is an ideology that is forced through government and slaughter. If it weren't true then the reds wouldn't of needed to slaughter their own people.

History repeats itself time and time again that communists need to slaughter people to force their ideology on to the people. The fact that marxism breeds a stifling of political expression and poltical slaughter is also evident in the fact that ALL established communist/socialist are/were one party systems.

You can either accept this as it is, or you can do what every other SA delusional does and claim that it's not true socialism or it was hijacked or whatever denialist argument you want to come up with.

Marx's model in it's actual implementations have been;

A redistribution of wealth that makes society poorer than it is, yet still creates a burgoise. This new class consists of those who are loyal and chosen to the ideology and are meathead bruisers for the party.

The government owns almost everything and the government can shut you down and limit whole classes of people in greater ways than before compared to any other system bar despotism.

In the heart of every true socialist is the desire to butcher their home constitution to serve the ends of socialists and the socialists alones. All they care about is their shitty pipedream and they don't care for the practicalities involved. Heads will roll.

Marx is responsible for most deaths in the 20th century. Because he inspired the slaughterers to slaughter. What more can one say? If you still think Marx's one size fits all ideology is great you're delusional

 

[auerbach]

No that is not case

If YOU read back (and any future posts) you will discover that Zeitgeist is a very well read and highly articulate individual.

You will find that he disagrees with your way of thinking but he is certainly intelligent (features often confused with being stupid by the unsuspecting).

I disagree with a lot that Zeitgeist says (as I am social-democratic sort of person) but I would certainly enjoy debating with him more than many people as he knows his history and he can certainly back what he is saying with close and constant reference to the set ideology he is putting forward.

Attacking his (obvious) intelligence is not the way to debase or win this argument and you should not have attempted to do so.

He is not able to back up what he's saying at all, in fact he has a very warped view of history and spends most of his time debating over semantics. For the record, I was not attacking his intelligence as part of a debate with him, my post about his intelligence was directed at you. You will never find me arguing ad-hominem with him, and I await his reply. May I advise against debating with him? A good debater does not fall back on arguments like "define successful" or "define worked", and a good debater will never go to the dictionary to try and prove a minor point. Please do not suggest that I am ignorant enough to say that somebody who disagrees with my way of thinking is not intelligent by default. To the contrary. At no point am I saying he is not intelligent for possessing such ideologies, but rather he displays a lack of intelligence in debate. I am not in a position to assess his intelligence quantitatively, but based on what I've read I do feel that he is a poor debater, and quite narrow-minded. On the history front, I am yet to see him provide me with an example to back up his ideology which either way suggests a weakness in his debate, if not his way of thinking.

 

[mick135]

for you to say communism is the greatest evil on humanity is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo*breathe*ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo dumb its sad.
communism is just a theory of a way of living. To an extent, people native to their homelands - like african tribes, aboriginals before 1760's and islanders lived in a communial society. so it can work, just things have been added to it over the last century to make it be seen as an evil (ie no religion etc)
the only bad thing i can say about communism, is that democratic societies are generally richer. China now knows that, and are communist by "name only" - ie, their a communist country, with free enterprises galore - go figure.
same with russia.
Communism almost worked in cuba, i'll give it that much.

 

[44Ronin]

the only bad thing i can say about communism, is that democratic societies are generally richer. China now knows that, and are communist by "name only" - ie, their a communist country, with free enterprises galore - go figure.
same with russia.
Communism almost worked in cuba, i'll give it that much.

Kid, people don't run away from these communist societies to gain political asylum simply because they are poor. People didn't try to climb the berlin wall and face machine guns because they were poor.

And if communism almost worked in cuba, then why did Che arm children? Tells you something about the nature of communism.

 

[moll.]

Kid, people don't run away from these communist societies to gain political asylum simply because they are poor. People didn't try to climb the berlin wall and face machine guns because they were poor.

And if communism almost worked in cuba, then why did Che arm children? Tells you something about the nature of communism.

In all fairness you must consider the pragmatic response of a newly created communist nation. With the common stereotype being aggressively against them in the Western world, it's little wonder that all of them find it necessary to maintain their power through blatant militancy. They literally stand alone against the combined might of the Western democracies. Look at Russia. In 1918, only months after the Bolshevik Revolution, the country was invaded by the Western democracies in order to reinstate the tsar. They failed, but the paranoia about the West's aggressive outlook on communism remained.
Also, most new ideas are at first perverted into a form that resembles a mix of both the new idea and the old. Look at Christianity. In 313AD it was made the official religion of the Roman Empire, but it's traditions were merged with that of the old pagan religions of Rome. The date of Christmas was changed from the beginging of the year to the end, in order to align itself with a traditional pagan holiday of the sun (?), and the precise calculations for working out the date of Easter were influenced by pagan dates.
Same thing happened after the French Revolution. They took power off the monarchy, but then found that they couldnt survive, so had to pervert their original ideas to make it work. Thus, the Terror was introduced, and a military dictatorship was established, eventually leading back to a new monarchic dynasty in the form of Napoleon.
Similarly, Communism was perverted and changed in order to survive. This reminds me of a quote from The Satanic Verses. It goes along the lines of:

Any new idea… is asked two questions… The first is asked when it's weak: WHAT KIND OF IDEA ARE YOU? Are you the kind that compromises, does deals, accommodates itself to society, aims to find a niche, to survive; or are you the cursed, bloody-minded ramrod-backed type of damnfool notion that would rather break than sway with the breeze? - the kind that will almost certainly, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, be smashed to bits; but the hundredth time, will change the world?

Christianity, democracy and communism are the former kind.
Also, after the French Revolution, France was beset upon all sides by enemies who wished to re-establish the monarchy, in the same way as Russia was. This necessitated a more militaristic and tyrannical rule, again, the same same as Russia.
In fact, the only reason that i believe that democracy was allowed to flourish in the West was that it began on an island (Britain), and thus was immune to foreign intervention. So in reality, the democracy which is often touted on this thread as being the better alternative started off on a similar foot as communism did, and the only reason it was able to survive was that it was allowed to develop in relative peace.

 

[44Ronin]

In all fairness you must consider the pragmatic response of a newly created communist nation. With the common stereotype being aggressively against them in the Western world, it's little wonder that all of them find it necessary to maintain their power through blatant militancy.

The same old rhetoric denial that is prefabricated for socialists to systematically believe.

They literally stand alone against the combined might of the Western democracies. Look at Russia. In 1918, only months after the Bolshevik Revolution, the country was invaded by the Western democracies in order to reinstate the tsar. They failed, but the paranoia about the West's aggressive outlook on communism remained.

I suppose that explains the gulag, the slaughter, the five year plans, the labour camps. All atrocities the soviet union inflicted upon itself? Complete bullshit. The 'revolution' is always about the slaughter of people. Socialists have proven themselves guilty in every occasion and opportunity.

It's the tin foil hat claim that what is vaguely defined as captalism/democracy as undercutting communism. It's bullshit. The soviets slaughtered their own people to achieve their objectives. There is nothing more to it than that.

If your argument is true, explain this logic :
IF the marxists/socialists/whatever are so ethically superior, then why did they think holding on to their system was more important than their own people???? Hmmm?

Installing leaders is nothing new or particular to communism/capitalism/democracy, and has more to do with putting people in power who are favourable towards you than what system of government is in place. True to this fact, they did lose the allegiance of Russia when the Bolsheviks stayed in power. Remember the pact the russians had with the Nazi's?. Oh yeah - you seem to forget that maybe the western nations knew the Bolsheviks were of extremist ideology who were likely to support other horrible regimes.

Christianity, democracy and communism are the former kind.
Also, after the French Revolution, France was beset upon all sides by enemies who wished to re-establish the monarchy, in the same way as Russia was. This necessitated a more militaristic and tyrannical rule, again, the same same as Russia.

Nonsense - nothing demands a tyrannical rule except in situation where you are not supported. It has nothing to do with necessity. If this is true then Cuba should of been hundreds of times worse than Soviet russia, which has whole systems of satellite states to support it.

The idea that the soviets went it alone is also bullshit. They had whole networks of support from satellite states to allies both communist and non communist.

You're trying to argue that their hands were forced into slaughter of the gulags? That is akin to saying America was responsible for the hindenburg disaster because they refused to trade helium to germany. So I guess the west are responsible for the gulag because we didn't see Bolshevism as a good thing? Your argument is absurd and extremely stupid.

At every point the soviets were trying to achieve their vision of what the party wanted while the believers were scammed into believing they were working towards a utopia.

In communism/socialist/marxism the end always justifies the means. That is why it is dangerous. When people cannot, will not and still will not to this day accept the horrors as being ultimately the result of soviets or as I like to call them Products of Marx.

 

[moll.]

I suppose that explains the gulag, the slaughter, the five year plans, the labour camps. All atrocities the soviet union inflicted upon itself? Complete bullshit. The 'revolution' is always about the slaughter of people. Socialists have proven themselves guilty in every occasion and opportunity.

It's the tin foil hat claim that what is vaguely defined as captalism/democracy sabotagued communism. It's bullshit. The soviets slaughtered their own people to achieve their objectives. There is nothing more to it than that.

Installing leaders is nothing new or particular to communism/capitalism/democracy, and has more to do with putting people in power who are favourable towards you than what system of government is in place. True to this fact, they did lose the allegiance of Russia when the Bolsheviks stayed in power. Remember the pact the russians had with the nazi's?. Oh yeah - you seem to forget.

Nonsense - nothing demands a tyrannical rule except in situation where you are not supported. It has nothing to do with necessity. You're trying to argue that their hands were forced into slaughter of the gulags? That is akin to saying America was responsible for the hidenburg disaster because they refused to trade helium to germany.

At every point the soviets were trying to achieve their vision of what the party wanted. In communism/socialist/marxism the end always justifies the means. That is why it is dangerous when people cannot, will not and still to this day refuse to accept the attrocities as they were.
[/font][/font]

I never made excuses for these things. But whilst Stalin was a completely ruthless dictator who should never have been given power, regardless of the ends he was trying to bring about, the basis and the machinery for his power was established during the Civil War.
Up until the invasion of Russia by the Western powers, the government was actually using a system of state capitalism. The proletariat and peasantry (who consituted about 95% of the population) had vastly more rights than before. Women were given equality. The Eastern Front was brough to a close and food was redistrubuted as the army was demobilised. Imagine where this would have ended up if not for the civil war.
In fact, every communist country has been born on the cusp of war. All of them have either led an insurgency or had to fight one, or even both.

As for lacking support, the Russians only lacked support externally, and from the landed aristocracy and bourgeoius within Russia. They were quite popular with the proleteriat, because they represented them, and with the peasantry because they had given the land over to them.
If you remember, the French Revolution was perverted from it's course, used fear and death to control the populace and turned into dictatorship the same way the the Bolshevik revolution did. And all that was in the name of democracy.

As for the nazi-soviet pact, that was again made out of pragmatism and realistic views. Hitler wanted to avoid a two front war, and the Soviets wanted to avoid war until they were ready. If you remember, Hitler invaded the Soviet Union less than two years later, even though the pact lasted for ten years.

My point was that the democracies of the West were created under wholly different circumstances of peace, so you cannot say that communism doesn't work, is it has never been given the same chance as capitalism and democracy.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

I'm studying Trotsky and the Soviet Union between the wars for Modern History.

:rofl: Damn you're a lucky bastard! If our school did those options for modern history I probably would have picked it over physics.

However, i was mostly just curious to see whether you were a fanatical Trotskyist or a real Marxist

Nah, I'm not a Trotskyist, I suffer from the "infantile disorder" (ie. Left-Communism).

Soo..umm..to kind of shift the topic to what I think it was intended to be about...

Have high levels of state interventionism been the greatest evil unleashed on humanity?

*Ding, Ding, Ding!* Ladies and Gentlemen we have a winner. Unfortunately it's too late to steer this boat back on course, she was lost at sea and sank long ago...

Have you thought of doin ext hist btw. If u base ur major work on all this stuff i can see a really high mark coming out of this all

Unfortunately I don't do any history. Before this year it was my best subject, unfortunately I passed on it in favour of physics and chemistry. Really regret it now (especially the temptation of doing a major work with a historical materialist analysis)

I’ll keep an I eye out for you next year when the state awards come out

When you go to a public school ranked 400 and something-th in the state there is little chance of that.

Out of interest, whilst it is not very important, how do you fair in maths and science?

Math I'm not great. I do 3u but I don't do particularly well (ie. 70's)
I do Physics and Chem, both of which I do well at (Physics I'm in the top 3, Chem I'm coming first).

I do best at the social sciences, however of them I only do Geo (Of which I am coming first)

Adv English is all about looking into things that don't matter a damn (imaginative journey's) and then trying to make absolute BS up while trying to maintain a straight face.

Took the words right out of my mouth!

Zeitgeist is in effect too smart to do well in Adv English

My just a *tad* of an overstatement

Mind you political and social awareness/well read does not always assure good marks/UAI - that is the problem!

:rofl: So true. (One of) The top maths students in my grade is a complete block head when it comes to (what I call) the real world (ie. history, geography, politics etc.), eg. she doesn't know who Lincoln was, who Washington was, who Mao Tse-Tung was, who Stalin was, or who the Australian PM before last was! Me and a mate once even managed to convince her that Peru was a street in our suburb after she told us she had never heard of Ethiopia before . Sad and borderline frightening...

Zeitgeist isn't too smart to do well in anything, perhaps not smart enough.

[...]

Zeitgeist is the sort of person that I can easily see desperately clutching at spelling mistakes and grammar errors in the hope of resucitating his inherrently flawed argument.

[...]

He is not smart he is simply idealistic and outspoken (features often confused with intelligence by the unsuspecting).

Oh deary me, what is this we have hear? Committing the same "fallacy" you accused me of a few pages back?

"You really should avoid arguing ad-hominem, it simply hands me the argument and is a sign of weakness in debate."

How does your own medicine taste? Would you like it with or without sugar? Either way it is awfully bitter, sorry about that...

If you actually read what he's been saying you'll soon see that he argues ad-hominem far too regularly

Care to quote me on that, or let me guess, you don't bear the burden of proof ...

he centralises his entire debate around small points that bear no weight on the topic at hand.

This is not my debate! I have been the negative side for the majority of this debate, responding to the various attacks and queries of others only making my case intermittently.

Further, the "small points" are essential to any meaningful and valuable debate. I'd love to see your rock up to a school debating competition and refuse to define your terms arguing instead that such a thing is a "small point that bears no weight or relevance to the topic at hand".

in fact he has a very warped view of history

In what way is my view of history "warped"? Oh, woops, let me guess, I'm slipping into semantics again? Or wait, am I arguing ad hominem this time?

he [...] spends most of his time debating over semantics.

If you choose to use vague and meaningless terms devoid of context I can do nothing more.

For the record, I was not attacking his intelligence as part of a debate with him, my post about his intelligence was directed at you.

So you can explain away your insults by separating them from the debate at hand, yet mine are logically fallacious

A good debater does not fall back on arguments like "define successful" or "define worked", and a good debater will never go to the dictionary to try and prove a minor point.

I agree with Auerbach here. A constructive and healthy debate is best built on assumptions, "common sense" and a refusal to come to terms on the topic at hand...

 

[44Ronin]

The proletariat and peasantry (who consituted about 95% of the population) had vastly more rights than before. Women were given equality.

Oh please.....Women's Sufferage was a WORLDWIDE MOVEMENT of the time.

The Eastern Front was brough to a close and food was redistrubuted as the army was demobilised. Imagine where this would have ended up if not for the civil war.

The eastern front was closed due to the Germans breaking a deal with the bolsheviks, not the bolsheviks breaking a deal with the germans.......

In fact, every communist country has been born on the cusp of war. All of them have either led an insurgency or had to fight one, or even both.

That's because the communists try to break order when times are toughest to present the situation as a failure of system rather than a result of consequences. They do this to gather the aggrieved into a mob that rolls the current system and slaughters political enemies so their position is secure.

If people WANTED communism, the communists wouldn't need such dire circumstances to exploit. This is one of the many reasons why communism is not a form of freedom.

If you remember, the French Revolution was perverted from it's course, used fear and death to control the populace and turned into dictatorship the same way the the Bolshevik revolution did. And all that was in the name of democracy.

Actually it was in the name of Liberty....not democracy.

As for the nazi-soviet pact, that was again made out of pragmatism and realistic views. Hitler wanted to avoid a two front war, and the Soviets wanted to avoid war until they were ready. If you remember, Hitler invaded the Soviet Union less than two years later, even though the pact lasted for ten years.

If you knew anything about it, Stalin was in dis-belief for the first weeks of operation uranus and gave orders not to fight the germans for the first few days. Preceediing this, Stalin actually slayed all of his military talent through purges.

My point was that the democracies of the West were created under wholly different circumstances of peace, so you cannot say that communism doesn't work, is it has never been given the same chance as capitalism and democracy.

If you must insist on pushing 'circumstances' , look back to Athens 500B.C - Demokratia was evolved in similar difficult circumstances and prospered. It did not slaughter its own citizens in a fit of madness and self destructive insanity.

Why? Because it was a system that developed naturally and didn't come from a hodgepode theory from the cult of marx.

 

[Matt1120]

The eastern front was closed due to the Germans breaking a deal with the bolsheviks, not the bolsheviks breaking a deal with the germans.......

The treaty was called Brest-Litovsik or something wasnt it? I'm just trying to remember without opening my books lol

 

[zstar]

The treaty was called Brest-Litovsik or something wasnt it? I'm just trying to remember without opening my books lol

Are you talking about Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?

 

[moll.]

Oh please.....Women's Sufferage was a WORLDWIDE MOVEMENT of the time.

Yeah, and the Bolsheviks took it one step further. Women were given the right right to divorce and abort, as well how all legal discrimination was abolished. That was unprecedented and unequaled up to that point.

The eastern front was closed due to the Germans breaking a deal with the bolsheviks, not the bolsheviks breaking a deal with the germans.......

Wrong.
The Russians were the ones who declared the armistace, NOT the Germans.

That's because the communists try to break order when times are toughest to present the situation as a failure of system rather than a result of consequences. They do this to gather the aggrieved into a mob that rolls the current system and slaughters political enemies so their position is secure.

If people WANTED communism, the communists wouldn't need such dire circumstances to exploit. This is one of the many reasons why communism is not a form of freedom.

I believe Cuba became communist in 1959. The situation really wasn't "tough" at all then.
If people wanted democracy then Robespierre and the others wouldn't have had to wait until the French government was bankrupt.
If people wanted democracy then Cornwall wouldn't have had to wage war for nine years on the English monarchy, he would've had the immediate support of the populace.
If people wanted democracy then they wouldn't have waited until Germany was on the verge of collapse to overthrow the Kaiser.

Actually it was in the name of Liberty....not democracy.

So was the American constitution.

If you knew anything about it, Stalin was in dis-belief for the first weeks of operation uranus and gave orders not to fight the germans for the first few days. Preceediing this, Stalin actually slayed all of his military talent through purges.

hahahaha.
I've been studying it for the past two years.
However, if you knew anythign about it, you'd know that Operation Uranus was a year later. It had nothing to do with the initial invasion of Russia. That was Operation Barbarossa.
But yes, he was in disbelief. This has nothing to do with communism however.

If you must insist on pushing 'circumstances' , look back to Athens 500B.C - Demokratia was evolved in similar difficult circumstances and prospered. It did not slaughter its own citizens in a fit of madness and self destructive insanity.

Why? Because it was a system that developed naturally and didn't come from a hodgepode theory from the cult of marx.

I don't do Ancient History, so unfortunately i can't comment on this.

 

[44Ronin]

Are you talking about Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?

Brest Litovsk, where the bolshevik's sold out to germany.

 

[moll.]

Are you talking about Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?

No, Brest-Litovsk was to conclude the fighting on the Eastern Front in World War 1.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was an alliance between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in 1939, just prior to World War 2.

 

[Captain Hero]

Zeitgeist is a pretty cool guy, eh decries the bourgeoise and doesn't afraid of dialectic shift.

 

[zstar]

Fucking commies seriously if you hate it so much then move to North Korea or Cuba.

Why the hell do you liberals always want to push everyone down just because you don't want to work?

Seriously you're not satisfied with welfare now you want everyone else to live like a damn slave?

In this society you have food, housing, social mobility the freedom to move to other jobs, the freedom to start a business, the freedom to invest in shares, the freedom to study etc etc etc so why the hell do you want live some crappy system where you're forced to starved to death and rationed for food and sent to labour camp if you disagree with the way things the government runs?

You people are insane beyond belief. You cannot possibly after seeing failure after failure of the Communist system actually believe in this nonsense? Russia, China and even Cuba are moving towards free markets because Communism is shit and totally failed.

 

[Silver Persian]

-_-;;