"Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity" (3 Viewers)

[moll.]

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.

LOL

 

[44Ronin]

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.

I assume no where else on earth women had these rights? Please.....

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

The bolsheviks completely sold out to germany in the Brest-Litovsk treaty.

I believe Cuba became communist in 1959. The situation really wasn't "tough" at all then.

No, they converted in 61', and the cuban missile crisis was in 62. It wasn't a picnic. It was tough because like in russia, there were attempts at restoring the status quo.

If people wanted democracy then they wouldn't have waited until Germany was on the verge of collapse to overthrow the Kaiser.

No, the overthrow led to a political vacuum. Luckily, the Freikorps who had the support of the people put down the spartacists and other such extremist groups

So was the American constitution.

The American constitution came AFTER the war of independence. A war that was fought over economics rather than democratic liberties. The constitution was an evolution of circumstances born out of extremity. NOT the other way round where an ideology makes extremity and conflict.



And yes I minced words uranus barbarossa. The point is that the communists had no qualms with allying with other extremists if they saw benefit in doing so. Another debunk to the ethical superiority myth of communism.

 

[Captain Hero]

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.

Surely what you mean is the 'freedom' to choose my lord and master and to serve under him as profit = theft!

 

[tommykins]

回复: Re: "Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity"

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.

Sounds like the words of someone who's been defeated. Did you even read Zeitgeist's posts?

 

[Captain Hero]

Re: 回复: Re: "Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity"

There's something a bit shifty in the thought that one can be programmed by society to accept most anything. Tabula rasa has been substantially discredited, though it would be unbecoming of me to cite evolutionary psychology at such an early stage in the discipline, I cannot see how social conditioning alone can lead to this more 'natural' state.

More reading to do, though I have gotten Das Kapital and the manifesto and I will flick through them. I think the main problem Zeitgeist faces is that the kids in Uni who share similar beliefs go all gooey-pants at the thought of a violent revolution. Zeitgeist seems like a reasoned and well-educated individual, not one who would be easily moved towards violent revolution but one that believes in a kind of memetic transfer of an overall change in human awareness and consciousness.

However, I don't really see how the system is any different than anarcho capitalism, other than the removal of currency value, instead maintaining only a form of utility value.

 

[Matt1120]

Are you talking about Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?

Nope wrong war, this was in the first world war, its a major turning point. Its kool i looked it up, i was right

 

[moll.]

OK, so now we're just arguing back and forth about petty things.
The point remains that communism was created in war, and hence the neccessities of war took their toll in terms of idealism and reality.

But, just to correct a few things (and to be annoying), the Bolsheviks alternative at Brest-Litovsk wasn't a viable option. They had seized power on the promise of ending the war, and if they had continued it then they would have suffered the same fate as the former government.
There's also the convenient excuse that it was an imperialistic war.

Also, my argument has never been from the point of the communist ideology, i've simply been arguing that it hasn't been given a fair chance throughout history. In fact, i'm a conservative moderate when it comes to the economy and only agree with the communists in their social outlook.
So when you say that the Soviet-Nazi Pact was proving wrong the superiority of communsit ideology, i'd like to repeat the oft quoted argument in this thread, which i would remind you is not my own:
The Soviet Union under Stalin was as far from the correct application of communism as Nazism was from the same.
Also, I don't see how defending the lands that the communists have through diplomatic and not violent means is in conflict with the communist ideology.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

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.

I found it necessary to devote the space and time to establishing who carries the burden of proof in our little scuffle since you proved unable to do so. The fact that you attribute to it a supposed lack of confidence in my own argument is unnecessary and actually shows your own desperation to "score points".

I DO NOT bear the burden of proof in the overall thesis that communism, Marxism etc. do not work in practice.

Correct, instead you carry the burden of proof for the thesis that communism does not work in practice.

To say that communism doesn't work, does not require me to "prove" it.

Yes it does, see above (my post before last) and below for more details.

How does one prove that communism doesn't work?

I'll give you a hint: You Can't. Hence why arguing as such is illogical.

Forget what Oxford and Wikipedia say (which you have warped to fit your argument) and just face the facts

Oh please, how much lower are you going to stoop in a desperate attempt to score points. If you are sceptical of my truthful replication of the sources given, go look them up!

Actually this is an interesting analogy.

I claimed that the definitions I provided where copied from Wikipedia, Dictionary.com and the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Now, why didn't you repond by saying "The supposed definitions you provided are not turthfully replicated"? You would be the negative, no? The burden of proof would be my own, correct?

No, of course not! That would be plain stupid and you know it. But, the question now begs, what is the difference between the statement "the quotes from the given sources in your post are untruthfully repilicated" and the claim that "communism does not work"?

Again with semantics, "communism works" is your assersion.

No it is not. Implicitly I can be said to agree with this assertion, however I do not take the next step and explicitly proclaim: "Communism works in 'theory' and in 'practice'". This is the same with my religious belief, I am non-religious [ie. a implicit (weak) athiest], not an explicit (strong) atheist who makes the claim "God does not exist".

Surely you can see this claim needs much more evidence and proof, than my claim of communism's not working.

No it doesn't. They both require proof as they are both making a claim/assertion.

Yet I am the only one to put forward examples of it not working.

The examples you have used are examples of "communism" not working hitherto. It is incorrect to generalise from experience and claim communisms inherent unworkability.

And your claim that "god does not exist" requires as much proof as "god exists" is absolutely obscence.

To someone who doesn't understand the difference between an implict and an explicit atheist, of course it is.

"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.

Correct. If someone where to claim to me that "The magic of Harry Potter works not only in fiction but in material reality" I would respond in the manner of a skeptic and reply: "Unless you show me evidence of your assertion, I have no reason to believe it". This is completely different to responding by saying: "No, that's rubbish. The magic of Harry Potter is only ever going to work in fiction". This response is not the negative of the original assertion, it is merely the inverse.

People that believe that the magic works in practice (I'm sure there are some) are not the negative, or the defensive.

They are if they reject the statement "The magic of Harry Potter is only ever going to work in fiction" on the basis of the burden of proof and do not put forward the inverse position explicitly.

Rather theists must provide evidence of creation, and communsits must provide evidence of communism's success.

Correct, however, the explicit (strong) atheist does need to provide evidence of (for example) the impossibility of creation, just like anti-communists must provide evidence of communisms inherent impossibility. Only the sceptic (and not the anti-theist or anti-Marxist) is free of the burden of proof.

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.

My requesting you to define your terms is not a last resort, it is an attempt to understand in what you mean by the statement that "communism has never worked".

Worked means worked

Are you serious!? I did not know that. Just as well I asked isn't it...

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.

That's a very particular [and yet at the same time vague (ie. "etc.")] definition of "worked" you have there. Despite this, it would be incorrect to claim that there have never been any "socialist [utopian or scientific] states which have worked". I'm sure Marxist-Leninists would argue that the the USSR under Stalin was a "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.", likewise with Utopian socialists such as Robert Owen re New Lanark and New Harmony.

2. Unbelievable 'What do you define as the "state"' By state I mean sovereign nation.

What is unbelieveable about asking you to define "state"? Marxists, Anarchists and Weberians all have destinct defintions of the state as a political institution.

"there have never been any socialist states" you just contradicted your entire argument.

How? I don't see any contradiction?

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.

Saying that "communism" (in it's various manifestations) has not worked in practice hitherto" is not the same as saying "communism does not work in practice"

"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.

If that is what you call "arguing that it works in theory", then sure I am. What else can I do but that without real-world "success" stories to refer to?

I placed them deliberately side by side, because they are the proverbial political poles. Extreme left wing v. Extreme right wing.

Fair enough, my mistake, although I think your original statement was rather ambiguous and did lend to this confusion.

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.

In what ways are they similar?

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.

You are the one who misattributed these characteristics to Communist political theory. You made the mistake here. Don't try to shake it off or shout it down with your bleating.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

I'm not right wing.

Nor where you one of the founding members of this thread.

The issue is not whether it works or not, but whether it is a better system than the one we have now.

I would agree with the former statement, but disagree with the latter as irrelevant and useless for two reasons.

Firstly the matter of how we define "better". Different sections of society have very different understandings of what is "better" or "worse". In a sense, any conclusion made is one which has it's basis in class, society as a whole can not come to the conclusion of the systems inherent superiority.

It is only of your denial that you are actually unwilling to accept criticism of marxism.

I am perfectly willing to accept legitimate and valuable criticism of Marxism. The reason why I have not (to any large degree) in this thread, is because I have not seen it.

The biggest issue is that communism limits peoples expression of their own political leanings.

Firstly, the "Communism" (note the capitalisation) of which you are speaking is not the same as the "communism" of which I am speaking.

Secondly, what is inherently wrong about the limitation of "peoples expression of their own political leanings"? (Note this is a not an attempt at apologia for the practices of the "socialist states")

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.

If this is a case against my own politics, I'm afraid it's the same old straw man which has reared it's ugly head innumerable times throughout this thread.

SA delusional

By "SA" are you referring to the "Socialist Alliance". If you are you aught to know I would agree with your labelling them "delusional" as I think their politics are pathetic.

Marx is responsible for most deaths in the 20th century. Because he inspired the slaughterers to slaughter.

Lovely "Great Men" conception of history you employ here.

If you still think Marx's one size fits all ideology is great you're delusional

How is "Marx's Ideology" "one size fits all". Also, have you even read Marx before?

To the rest of your "argument" I'm frankly not interested in responding. It's the same senseless diatribe we've seen over and over again in this thread. When you have an interesting comment I will respond properly, until then I'm not going to bother wasting my time.

@ zstar, STFO, I have no time for your stupidity any more.

 

[lionking1191]

The bolsheviks completely sold out to germany in the Brest-Litovsk treaty.

yeah and look what happened a few years later.

No, they converted in 61', and the cuban missile crisis was in 62. It wasn't a picnic. It was tough because like in russia, there were attempts at restoring the status quo.

no. they turned commie in 59. the bay of pigs landing was in 61.

And yes I minced words uranus barbarossa. The point is that the communists had no qualms with allying with other extremists if they saw benefit in doing so. Another debunk to the ethical superiority myth of communism.

stalin really did not see any difference between german capitalists and western capitalists like britain and france - they were all damn capitalists. all he cared about was national security and sovereignty - like any other rational minded nation state. stalin was never a true mandate of the bolshevik revolution - he only pretended he was.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Re: 回复: Re: "Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity"

There's something a bit shifty in the thought that one can be programmed by society to accept most anything. Tabula rasa has been substantially discredited, though it would be unbecoming of me to cite evolutionary psychology at such an early stage in the discipline, I cannot see how social conditioning alone can lead to this more 'natural' state.

To be honest, I didn't get much out of all this. I do just want to re-iterate. I do not believe communism requires the type of "paradigm shift" or "social programming" you describe. Nor doI see any no good reason to start believing so.

More reading to do, though I have gotten Das Kapital and the manifesto and I will flick through them.

As I have said before, I do not recommend the reading of Capital. Capital is a book which need to be read through in full, progressing over it with a fine tooth comb.

The list I suggested earlier in this thread (which I can repost if you so desire) is I think so much more interesting, valuable and quick to get through.

Zeitgeist seems like a reasoned and well-educated individual not one who would be easily moved towards violent revolution but one that believes in a kind of memetic transfer of an overall change in human awareness and consciousness.

You're too kind . Though I think you still have some misgivings about my politics.

However, I don't really see how the system is any different than anarcho capitalism, other than the removal of currency value, instead maintaining only a form of utility value.

Add to that the abolition of classes and the commodification of labour and in the end result I suppose they could be be said to be similar (though I think the only real similarity is the abolition of the state, which Marxist and Anarcho-Capitalists see differently even then).

 

[lionking1191]

Re: 回复: Re: "Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity"

Zeitgeist seems like a reasoned and well-educated individual, not one who would be easily moved towards violent revolution but one that believes in a kind of memetic transfer of an overall change in human awareness and consciousness.

in other words, a menshevik. and look what happened to them.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Re: 回复: Re: "Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity"

I'm going to say this for the final time. School has started for me and this thread has been steered way off course. I am no longer interested in argument presented. I will respond to any post which I see as being worth my time, but otherwise I will be resigning from this thread.

 

[lionking1191]

Re: 回复: Re: "Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity"

I'm going to say this for the final time. School has started for me and this thread has been steered way off course. I am no longer interested in argument presented. I will respond to any post which I see as being worth my time, but otherwise I will be resigning from this thread.

lol i see glimpses of trotsky in you. take that however you will.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Re: 回复: Re: "Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity"

in other words, a menshevik. and look what happened to them.

On what basis do you claim I am a Menshevik!? I am a self-described Left-Communist, something far removed from Menshevism.

Also, are you a Marxist? If you are I'm guessing a Trotskyist.

*Edit*: I guess not....

If that is the case I think your allegation that Stalin was "only pretended he was [a bolshevik]" is a wild and off-base claim.

 

[lionking1191]

Re: 回复: Re: "Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity"

On what basis do you claim I am a Menshevik!? I am a self-described Left-Communist, something far removed from Menshevism.

Also, are you a Marxist? If you are I'm guessing a Trotskyist.

If that is the case I think your allegation that Stalin was "only pretended he was [a bolshevik]" is a wild and off-base claim.

um i did quote. if you could refer to the above post you would see that i based it on captainghey's commendation.

and no, i am not.

as for my allegation, it is a widely pursued theory. it has been suggested by numerous historians including A. Ulam and Hosking, and even marxist apologests like Rogovin.

note here i did not say stalin only pretended he was a bolshevik. that is misquoting. i said he was never a true mandate of bolshevik revolution. i.e. he never committed himself to marxist-leninism but rather saw the state apparatus as a means of gathering power

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Re: 回复: Re: "Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity"

um i did quote. if you could refer to the above post you would see that i based it on captainghey's commendation.

As I made clear in my reply to Captain Hero, I think this is a mis-characterisation of my politics.

Secondly, the quote provided certainly does not lend to your conclusion of my supposed Menshevism in anyway.

i said he was never a true mandate of bolshevik revolution. i.e. he never committed himself to marxist-leninism but rather saw the state apparatus as a means of gathering power

Again I think this is a very big allegation to make. It sounds more to something fanatical and juvenile Trotskyite would say.

 

[lionking1191]

Re: 回复: Re: "Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity"

As I made clear in my reply to Captain Hero, I think this is a mis-characterisation of my politics.

Secondly, the quote provided certainly does not lend to your conclusion of my supposed Menshevism in anyway.



Again I think this is a very big allegation to make. It sounds more to something fanatical and juvenile Trotskyite would say.

captain hero. oops. mix-up there.
i did not base it on anything you said but rather from the description he gave - you have no cause to be offended.

as for the latter: again, i urge you to recognise the established academic trains of thought on the issue of contention. these scholars, i assure you, are expertise in their fields, and have a much wider access to various sources of information available to them than you do.

it would seem you hold a profound aversion towards trotskyism. i would like to ask, from what political/ethical platform does this spring from? i have noticed that stalinist history exhibit the strongest condemantion of trotsky - most of which have been established as propaganda, and i'm intrigued to see if that has had any influence on your views.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Re: 回复: Re: "Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity"

i did not base it on anything you said but rather from the description he gave - you have no cause to be offended.

Thank you for clarifying.

as for the latter: again, i urge you to recognise the established academic trains of thought on the issue of contention. these scholars, i assure you, are expertise in their fields, and have a much wider access to various sources of information available to them than you do.

I admit I am far from an expert re the life and politics of Stalin. Despite this I think the views presented by academics such as those you listed are on "the fringe".

it would seem you hold a profound aversion towards trotskyism

I would not call it "profound" in any sense, matter of fact I sympathise with the politics of Trotsky in his younger years (ie. his theory of Combined and Uneven Development and his recognition of the need of international revolution as a consequence of his theory of Permanent Revolution). Despite this I think that Trotsky post-revolution and subsequent Trotskyists have acted profoundly against the interests of the working class internatioanlly (I have detailed some of criticisms of Trotsky post-revolution a few pages back)

i would like to ask, from what political/ethical platform does this spring from? i have noticed that stalinist history exhibit the strongest condemantion of trotsky - most of which have been established as propaganda, and i'm intrigued to see if that has had any influence on your views per se.

Stalinist propoganda is certainly not the basis or even an influence in my anti-Trotskyism. It springs from my position as a Left-Communist, that is, if anything his many similarities to the politics of Stalin [ie. his support of the militarisation of labour, his support for the subordination of the trade unions to the state (something even Stalin took a softr position on), his support for national liberation movements, his support for the USSR during WWII (and other capitalist states in inter-imperialist conflicts), his support of the formation of United Fronts against Fascism (Stalin advocated Popular Fronts), support for economic programs of rapid indistrialisation of the USSR etc.]

 

[auerbach]

I found it necessary to devote the space and time to establishing who carries the burden of proof in our little scuffle since you proved unable to do so. The fact that you attribute to it a supposed lack of confidence in my own argument is unnecessary and actually shows your own desperation to "score points".

I did take care of who bears the burden of proof, you just failed to accept the obvious truth. It ultimately comes down to this: does communism work in practice? The burden of proof rests with you to provide examples of such, and if you can't see that then unfortunately this debate will never get anywhere. You think it works in practice, I don't. The evidence is explicit on my behalf: it never has. The burden of proof now rests with you, to provide an example suggesting otherwise.

Correct, instead you carry the burden of proof for the thesis that communism does not work in practice.

I think you meant something else to what you wrote? I'm confused.

Yes it does, see above (my post before last) and below for more details.



I'll give you a hint: You Can't. Hence why arguing as such is illogical.

No you are wrong on that point, not being able to prove something doesn't work, does not render arguing against it illogical. Nobody can ever prove that God definitely doesn't exist, but arguing against his existence is logical and necessary. Just as arguing against communism is logical and necessary.

Oh please, how much lower are you going to stoop in a desperate attempt to score points. If you are sceptical of my truthful replication of the sources given, go look them up!

I'm sure they are accurate representations, but you warped them (with your own words as extras) to fit your argument. I could have used the same definitions to support mine.

Actually this is an interesting analogy.

I claimed that the definitions I provided where copied from Wikipedia, Dictionary.com and the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Now, why didn't you repond by saying "The supposed definitions you provided are not turthfully replicated"? You would be the negative, no? The burden of proof would be my own, correct?

As explained above, I accept that they are truthfully replicated. But I could have used them to support my argument.

No, of course not! That would be plain stupid and you know it. But, the question now begs, what is the difference between the statement "the quotes from the given sources in your post are untruthfully repilicated" and the claim that "communism does not work"?

Again, that's not what I said.

No it is not. Implicitly I can be said to agree with this assertion, however I do not take the next step and explicitly proclaim: "Communism works in 'theory' and in 'practice'". This is the same with my religious belief, I am non-religious [ie. a implicit (weak) athiest], not an explicit (strong) atheist who makes the claim "God does not exist".

You implicitly agree with this assertion then. Again you are trying to veil your lack of rebuttal with semantics. Whether you agree implicitly or explicitly is in this context regardless. You believe that it works in theory (and I'm guessing in practice) therefore you must provide valuable evidence to suggest so.

No it doesn't. They both require proof as they are both making a claim/assertion.

The examples you have used are examples of "communism" not working hitherto. It is incorrect to generalise from experience and claim communisms inherent unworkability.

If they haven't worked hitherto and they will work hypothetically or in the future, then you are arguing for communism's workability in THEORY. Therefore according to an earlier post of yours, you are a Marxist "not worth his weight" do not come back and say "I implicitly claim that it works in theory, but never explicitly said so" because the two are the same really. I mean come on, if you're going to claim there's a difference then there's no hope left. And yes to generalise from experience, is indeed correct. It suggests communism's inherent unworkability to an unequivocal extent. "Apples fall towards the earth, if you drop them from a tree" that is simply true from experience and nothing else, as is the statement that "communism does not work in practice"

To someone who doesn't understand the difference between an implict and an explicit atheist, of course it is.

I do understand the difference, and to be an implicit atheist rather than an explicit atheist is semantic once again. OK so you don't believe god exists, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AT HAND (There we have something in common) and I don't believe communism works BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AT HAND. Really there's little difference between saying that and "god doesn't exist" and "communism doesn't work" respectively. You may not say god does not exist, but you may as well. I mean when you say leprechauns don't exist you should theoretically say it implicitly and be an implicit leprechaun atheist. But that's ridiculous, I'm sure you'll agree.

Correct. If someone where to claim to me that "The magic of Harry Potter works not only in fiction but in material reality" I would respond in the manner of a skeptic and reply: "Unless you show me evidence of your assertion, I have no reason to believe it". This is completely different to responding by saying: "No, that's rubbish. The magic of Harry Potter is only ever going to work in fiction". This response is not the negative of the original assertion, it is merely the inverse.

But don't you see, the second argument is valid. We KNOW the magic of Harry Potter is only ever going to work in fiction, without conducting experiments. I mean, does one need to stand in a field with a wand pointed at somebody, chanting crucio for a million years without it working, before we accept that it will never work in practice? No. There are some arguments that don't need defending, and they are arguments based on expereience and common sense.

They are if they reject the statement "The magic of Harry Potter is only ever going to work in fiction" on the basis of the burden of proof and do not put forward the inverse position explicitly.



Correct, however, the explicit (strong) atheist does need to provide evidence of (for example) the impossibility of creation, just like anti-communists must provide evidence of communisms inherent impossibility. Only the sceptic (and not the anti-theist or anti-Marxist) is free of the burden of proof.

By saying "God does not exist" you claim that I must prove his impossibility. That is false. Claiming God does not exist requires a previous assertion or belief in his existence. Without a belief in God in the first place, nobody would be in the position to say he doesn't exist. I don't believe in God, because there isn't any evidence to suggest his presence, not because I can "disprove" him. In effect, those who bear the burden of proof failed in their task. Similarly I don't believe communism works in practice, because there's no evidence to suggest otherwise. "Communism doesn't work" requires the previous belief that it does work, and as such it is the rebuttal. Just as "god doesn't exist" is the rebuttal to Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc.

My requesting you to define your terms is not a last resort, it is an attempt to understand in what you mean by the statement that "communism has never worked".

It is a last resort though. If you don't understand what I meant by worked, then you wouldn't be in a position to have this debate in the first place. Asking an opponent to define "worked" in a debate is a pathetic last-resort attempt to deflect bullets.

Are you serious!? I did not know that. Just as well I asked isn't it...

If you knew, why did you ask? I'll tell you, because you have nothing left to argue about.

That's a very particular [and yet at the same time vague (ie. "etc.")] definition of "worked" you have there. Despite this, it would be incorrect to claim that there have never been any "socialist [utopian or scientific] states which have worked". I'm sure Marxist-Leninists would argue that the the USSR under Stalin was a "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.", likewise with Utopian socialists such as Robert Owen re New Lanark and New Harmony.

Ofcourse the USSR worked, I forgot about that! Sorry I just lost the argument, how could I forget the USSR?!

What is unbelieveable about asking you to define "state"? Marxists, Anarchists and Weberians all have destinct defintions of the state as a political institution.

The context I used it in did not suggest a need for political definition. I used it as a suffix to suggest a generalised nation or place, you know that. You're just clutching at straws and trying to deflect my arguments.

How? I don't see any contradiction?

Because earlier you said arguing for communism in theory is only done by Marxists not worth their weight, and "trolls". Now unless you are suggesting yourself to be one of these entities...you contradicted yourself.

Saying that "communism" (in it's various manifestations) has not worked in practice hitherto" is not the same as saying "communism does not work in practice"

But if it hasn't worked in practice hitherto you must surely be claiming that it will work in the future. Claiming that communism will work is the same as claiming that communism works in theory. Remember, the future is theoretical.

If that is what you call "arguing that it works in theory", then sure I am. What else can I do but that without real-world "success" stories to refer to?

Exactly, you just proved my point from ages ago! If there are no success stories, this suggests it doesn't work in practice. But you are most certainly arguing for it, therefore you must be arguing for it in theory. Which is what advocates of communism implicitly always do. This is a ridiculous line of argument to pursue, because as I said before, you may aswell argue that dictatorship works in theory.

Fair enough, my mistake, although I think your original statement was rather ambiguous and did lend to this confusion.

Sorry about the confusion then. I didn't and still don't see the ambiguity, but perhaps that's because I wrote it.

In what ways are they similar?

Both lead to poverty, crime and a lack of prosperity. Fascist Cambodia differed little to Stalinist Russia.

You are the one who misattributed these characteristics to Communist political theory. You made the mistake here. Don't try to shake it off or shout it down with your bleating.

Which is why I'm saying that arguing for it in theory is even more illogical, because in practice the theoretical isn't even realistic.

May I point out to those who are reading these posts, that at least I have had the decency to rebutt Zeitgesit's arguments in their entirity. Zeitgeist's last post highlighted his propensity to pick and choose portions of my argument and quote only them. My arguments were taken out of context, and often the only reason he was able to argue them is because they were denied their original chaperones. Every argument I have challenged of his, I have challenged in its entirity and I have included the entire quote in my post. His debating tactics have degenerated from weak to dirty.