CheGuevara (forum member)
I have found the treatment of CheGuevara by a vague grouping of members of this forum to be decidedly un-Alpha, and since certain members of that group are in fact not members of Alpha Quadra, I have decided to bring the discussion under the jurisdiction of Alpha Quadra in order to make it more palatable to myself.
CheGuevara, on behalf of Sasquatch, Awesome and the Monarch of Pluto, I welcome you to the Alpha division of the16types.info.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
How has it been un-Alpha?
He is saying ridiculous things. Things that are not simply a tad bit odd (which I might find interesting), but things that are literally the craziest shit I've ever seen seriously expressed here.
If you want to call our "welcome" un-Alpha, then please call his belligerant, unfounded, and insulting typings un-Alpha.
I'm just reacting to the authority he speaks with, which grates my nerves.
How can I possibly even defend my ILE self-typing if one of the qualifications is being a communist?
Seriously, Brilliand?
The end is nigh
This is going to be entertaining. You read some good communist literature lately ?Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
The end is nigh
What seems to be the problem ?
Sorry... I should've specified what I was annoyed at. I kept seeing the "this forum thinks such-and-such, agree with it or leave" argument used against him... perhaps that isn't un-Alpha (Subterranean acts like that after all), but I held myself back from chewing out Gilly on the grounds that it might be related to Aristocratic or, so I figured heading over to Alpha Quadra was the logical alternative.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Part of the reason he started (and continues) arguing is that people started attacking him. Although he is pretty arrogant himself, there are gentler, subtle and highly effective ways to convince someone of error.
Come to Delta! We have adorable cookies and lovely EIIs
Maybe being a communist is like being a cylon--you don't even know you are one until they "activate" you.
The saddest ESFj
...
yeah man let's get some coffee
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
people react how they react though brilliand. you can't control that. personally i think cheguavara is kinda cool but c'mon you have to defend your points.Sorry... I should've specified what I was annoyed at. I kept seeing the "this forum thinks such-and-such, agree with it or leave" argument used against him... perhaps that isn't un-Alpha (Subterranean acts like that after all), but I held myself back from chewing out Gilly on the grounds that it might be related to Aristocratic or
and, as you so brilliantly criticize posts brilliand, so too shall others...lol
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
You listen to Guevara. He speak. You understand or I crush you with physical force.
Fake account.
Probably ArchonAlarion.
I'm not a Stalinist btw
I know the original Che Guevara thought of Stalin as a true hero. But in the 50s information from the Sowjet Union was not reliable. I'm sure Che's opinion of Stalin would have been a different one if he had known the truth...
I've never seen a communist ILE. D-ILEs are rather conservative, C-ILEs rather liberal, N-ILEs between conservative and liberal, H-ILEs rather socialists. That's just a tendency, of course...
Last edited by CheGuevara; 11-15-2009 at 01:06 AM.
Ni-INTj --- Harmonizing Analyst ----
DCNH rox
Tell me more about it.I'm not a Stalinist btw
Well....
Lenin - Ni-LII - tried to free the people from capitalism
Stalin - Te-LSE - a psychopath, showed complete incompetence concerning economical and military strategies
Che - Ni-LII - tried to free the people from capitalism
Fidel - Si-SEE - not very competent but better than nothing
Ni-INTj --- Harmonizing Analyst ---
DCNH rox
You know what you're talking about or are you just making things up - going with the flow as some would call it ?
And, no. Their "types" do not interest me at all.
A. ****** = H-EII 6w7 sx\so
Oh, I agree, Stalin was the bad one; Lenin was actually a good and noble man! All the people Lenin killed were killed in pursuit of a noble cause, and that makes it okay! I mean come on, Lenin's mass murders were way smaller than Stalin's mass murders; hardly even worth mentioning. After all, you've got to break a few eggs to make an omelette, right? Or kill a few peasants, whatever.
People don't seem to realize that Communism is really a noble theory that will bring peace on earth. Those other guys just didn't implement it correctly. I mean, it's not like Communism is a vile meme that preys on people's envy and jealousy as a means of gaining power for the intellectual elite, or something. If that were the case, countries that turned Communist would immediately set about murdering all the rich people everybody was jealous of, and we all know that has never happened!
I mean, come on guys, don't be so ignorant and misinformed! Listen to a little more Communist propaganda, and you'll start to understand!
Quaero Veritas.
IMHE the best and most effective political system is rule by sentient computerized stock prediction robots.
I, for one, welcome our sentient computerized stock prediction robot overlords!
Quaero Veritas.
You and me both pal.
Gamma NTs
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Yes, I agree. I'm sorry to say that.
I'm of the opinion that Lenin's commands concerning death penalties or Red Terror cannot be called "mass murders". It always depends on the intentions a person has.
LII = ANALYST = ROBESPIERRE
Wasn't Robespierre a mass murderer, too? Just a matter of opinion...
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. You take the words out of my mouth
Ni-INTj --- Harmonizing Analyst ---
DCNH rox
How many people did Lenin kill ? How many people did Stalin kill ? And what's with the dualism again ?
I find meself in agreement with the rest.
You have been just served, Krig. Weigh your words wisely, for everything you say, says something about you, and everything you say can be used against you.
You aren't electrical. Blows the whole deal.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Most people here are just kids and don't really know the story of socialism/communism/fascism except as it has been disseminated by their teachers.
Take one piece of disinformation...
Yet in post-cold war English literature, George Orwell is a anti-communist and anti-socialist where he fought on the side of the socialists in the Spanish Civil War and wrote some of the most important socialist literature pretty much ever. But he is remember for writing Animal Farm which is as anti-Stalinist a piece of literature as any.
I've found that socialism and communism are taboo subjects in the US, pretty much a result of Mccarthy era blacklisting and bullying.
To say that the ideas of socialism and communism, such as progressive taxation and Universal health-care has not brought any benefit to society is stupid. The fact that people work only 40 hours a week, the fact that wages are set at a minimum. Many of the efforts of socialists and communists were not as revolutionary as the Stalinists or Maoists and these efforts have contributed to the enviroment that people take for granted.
Even the revolutionaries lived in a enviroment that was vastly different then America or Britain. To judge them by such standards is also stupid.
Currently, as far as I can tell, a portion of right wing America seek to take credit for all the changes and benefits modern society has brought, and in no way is the political ideology of capitalism the source of such contributions to society. Not that these people even engage in capitalism either, rather rent-seeking and mercantilism.
Anyways, progressive taxation is not merely the idea of communists. Adam Smith laid out the practical reasons for such a arrangement in his book Wealth of Nations. This one facet of modern society so tied with communist and socialist thought is rather capitalist in origination.
Frankly, I think most Americans and some Europeans are as brainwashed by these ideas of capitalism as people were brainwashed by communism in Stalinist and Maoist regimes. The brutality that was characteristic of communism a product of the revolutionary and brutal nature of the enviroment they lived in. It's not like Russia has become less brutal in their post-communism(just go to Chechnya).
The envy of the working class can be turned towards both communism and fascism to disastrous results. Was it not poverty and poor economic conditions that drove the Germans towards the Nazi's?
The condition exists in the United States where a large portion of working class are in tune with their right wing leaders who will turn that support towards fascism or some other form of ignorant rhetoric and position. It is not merely the communists who prey on envy.
Fantastic quotation, hkkmr
"When I came to Spain I was not only uninterested in the political situation but unaware of it". - Said by himself.
Heh. He didn't even agree with the actions of Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista.
"... I have never visited Russia and my knowledge of it consists only of what can be learned by reading books and newspapers”". - Said by himself.
Yes. Was an anti-communist and a state informer.
[QUOTE=Coolanzon;580449]Come to Delta! We have adorable cookies and lovely EIIs
QUOTE]
I didn't get any cookies!
ISTp
SLI
Enneagram 5 with a side of wings.
Wow. Just... wow.
Vladimir Lenin's hand-written order, dated August 11th, 1918:
"Kulaks" being the slightly better-off peasants that Lenin was confiscating grain from without compensation, and who had started rioting in protest. Yes, Lenin was a just and decent man, alright. Never ordered any mass murders at all!"Comrades! The insurrection of five kulak districts should be pitilessly suppressed. The interests of the whole revolution require this because 'the last decisive battle' with the kulaks is now under way everywhere. An example must be demonstrated.
1. Hang (and make sure that the hanging takes place in full view of the people) no fewer than one hundred known landlords, rich men, bloodsuckers.
2. Publish their names.
3. Seize all their grain from them.
4. Designate hostages in accordance with yesterday's telegram.
Do it in such a fashion that for hundreds of kilometres around the people might see, tremble, know, shout: "they are strangling, and will strangle to death, the bloodsucking kulaks".
Telegraph receipt and implementation.
Yours, Lenin.
Find some truly hard people"
Robespierre and Lenin were both mass murderers, yes. In my opinion, the only thing worse than a psychopath who murders because he's hungry and wants to eat a human heart, is an ideological monster who thinks he's justified in mass killings because his cause is so very noble.
It's difficult to parody abject fools, because the most outlandish things you can say about them often turn out to be true.Yes, that's exactly what I mean. You take the words out of my mouth
Dualism? I don't understand what you mean there.How many people did Lenin kill ? How many people did Stalin kill ? And what's with the dualism again ?
I find meself in agreement with the rest.
I was quoting the Simpsons, what are you talking about?
Quaero Veritas.
I value truth and justice, therefore I cannot accept statism (both socialism and communism necessarily being under my definition of archism).
Humans are collectivistic naturally. Forced collectivism by state mandate is actually suppressing the collectivistic benefits of the free market by subjecting the majority to minority rule (The only form of statism is oligarchy and primitve mobism. Mobism inevitably becomes oligarchy, monarchy is a facade).
Communism, fascism, and socialism are truly utopian. They attempt to cure humanity of the symptoms created by their own poisonous treatment.
The end is nigh
It's kinda of ironic that someone makes ideological stand against rhetorical straw men. Many free-marketers and communists reject the basic forces of envy and deception that exist within our collectivist and individualistic impulses. The free marketers say, "Let's have a free market and the invisible hand will work..." The communists say, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Yet the reality is more deceptive, and self-deceptive.
The root of brutality is neither communism or capitalism, but rather opposition of forces that do not compromise. Some nations circumvented much of the revolutionary forces which engulfed the world at least within their own territory. This was a combination of relatively decent living conditions and some compromise on the part of the governing body in reaction to the forces like fascism and communism.
Taking the communist manifesto as a starting point...
Policies in the world certainly do not reflect the extremes as dictated by these words but certainly most of the modern world has enacted at least in some part the mechanisms of distribution created by policies similar to this.
1. Most land is not owned technically, you have a deed to use and do certain things on the land that is granted by that deed and only within the rights as granted by the deed. Property rights is not full use of the land but only partial use as dictated by the ownership rights.
2. Progressive income tax exists in most modern states.
3. Estate tax
4. Don't be a terrorist
5. Pretty much everywhere too.
6. Yep, pretty much.
7/8. I won't comment too much on this. There is a lot of regulation and difference in enactment of measure to promote these initiatives.
9. This has largely happened as people have moved into cities, when this was written, most of the world was still rural.
10. This has mostly occured in the modern countries.
The world that exists today is certainly not communist or socialist nor some rampant free-market nightmare, althrough many would espouse such ideologies or denounce them, but rather something of a different animal. Capitalistic modes of production with communist regulatory provisions, yet this animal is totally abhorrent to the ideological because it's a rather bold compromise made in the effort towards a more peaceful co-existence.
As a whole much of the western world has turned to some form of liberal social democracy.
As a whole the only forces we cannot deny is not communism nor capitalism, but rather resources can concentrate in the hands of the few and there will be a need for the necessary distribution of those resources. By crook or con or consensual agreement this exchange of energy and resources will power our collaborative system and we can either seize up the system by refusing all transactions or produce the necessary communication required to enact them.
So, you basically strawmanned me lol.
I know and (i believe...) I agree with whaat you've said. I think the state was an unfortunate, but inescapable development in human evolution.
I certainly do not believe we have a pure form of any system of government. Its obviously a mesh of pseudo free market activity with regulatory and protectionist mandates. I also believe that its mostly always been like that relatively, although living conditions have improved (possibly not relatively).
I was speaking of the ideological arguments, not the actual political acitvity or motives.
The end is nigh
Krig, I would fight beside you in battle. If we were vikings.
The only natural system of government is rule by sentient stock prediction machines. It's in our DNA people!
I wanted to move this discussion out of ideological arguments and into policy discussions and how the world is managed and regulated practically. As a whole people try to avoid these sort of system discussions or reject them to protect their own position.
The problem with living in a system is that you are in a way trapped in your decision making by that system, this is why revolutionary rhetoric and tactics arise.
Also I don't really see that you understand communism or socialism as socialism is in no means utopian. It is specifically a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. Also as far as Marx was concerned, there is no direct transformation from capitalism to communism. As far as I'm concerned, there is no Utopian capitalism or communism, rather the interaction between concentration of resources and distribution of such resources.
As much as I dislike ideological rhetoric, one cannot deny that the effect of such rhetoric to move men into brutality and conflict. What temporary compromise do we make with our conscience? Since this is all ethics is.
Marx is not the sole arbiter of the definition of socialism, in fact he did not create the term:
The English word socialism (1839) derives from the French socialisme (1832), the mainstream introduction of which usage is attributed, in France, to Pierre Leroux,[12] and to Marie Roch Louis Reybaud; and in Britain to Robert Owen in 1827, father of the cooperative movement.[13][14] Although socialist models and ideas espousing common ownership have existed since antiquity with the classical Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle[15], the modern concept of socialism evolved in response to the development of industrial capitalism.
The first advocates of socialism favoured social levelling in order to create a meritocratic or technocratic society based upon individual talent. Count Henri de Saint-Simon is regarded as the first individual to coin the term socialism.[16] Simon was fascinated by the enormous potential of science and technology and advocated a socialist society that would eliminate the disorderly aspects of capitalism and would be based upon equal opportunities.[17] He advocated the creation of a society in which each person was ranked according to his or her capacities and rewarded according to his or her work.[18]
This was accompanied by a desire to implement a rationally-organised economy based on planning and geared towards large-scale scientific and material progress,[19] and thus embodied a desire for a more directed or planned economy. Other early socialist thinkers, such as Thomas Hodgkin and Charles Hall, based their ideas on David Ricardo's economic theories. They reasoned that the equilibrium value of commodities approximated to prices charged by the producer when those commodities were in elastic supply, and that these producer prices corresponded to the embodied labor — the cost of the labor (essentially the wages paid) that was required to produce the commodities. The Ricardian socialists viewed profit, interest and rent as deductions from this exchange-value.[20]
West European social critics, including Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Louis Blanc, Charles Hall and Saint-Simon, were the first modern socialists who criticised the excessive poverty and inequality of the Industrial Revolution. They advocated reform, with some such as Robert Owen advocating the transformation of society to small communities without private property.
Linguistically, the contemporary connotation of the words socialism and communism accorded with the adherents' and opponents' cultural attitude towards religion. In Christian Europe, of the two, communism was believed the atheist way of life. In Protestant England, the word communism was too culturally and aurally close to the Roman Catholic communion rite, hence English atheists denoted themselves socialists.[21]
Friedrich Engels argued that in 1848, at the time when the Communist Manifesto was published, "socialism was respectable on the continent, while communism was not." The Owenites in England and the Fourierists in France were considered "respectable" socialists, while working-class movements that "proclaimed the necessity of total social change" denoted themselves communists. This latter branch of socialism produced the communist work of Étienne Cabet in France and Wilhelm Weitling in Germany.[22]
[edit] Socialism in Marxist Theory
Karl MarxThe Marxist conception of socialism is that of a specific historical phase that will displace capitalism and be a precursor to communism. The major characteristics of socialism (particularly as conceived by Marx and Engels after the Paris Commune of 1871), are that the proletariat will control the means of production through a workers' state erected by the workers in their interests. Economic activity is still organised through the use of incentive systems and social classes would still exist but to a lesser and diminishing extent than under capitalism.[23] For orthodox Marxists, socialism is the lower stage of communism based on the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution" while upper stage communism is based on the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"; the upper stage becoming possible only after the socialist stage further develops economic efficiency and the automation of production has led to a superabundance of goods and services.[24][25]
The end is nigh
The communist manifesto was a document denouncing the ineffectiveness of most socialist movements and such it is a criticism of the hippy idiocy of most socialists of that time. It's effect was to destroy the effectiveness of most other socialist movements.
As a whole the forces at play are once again non-ideological, but the mere concentration of resources and it's distribution under some system as developed by man. This struggle, call it class struggle if you wish is mere will of men and our needs as dictated by nature propelling us into our trajectory in life.
People struggle as much for the world is beautiful as the world can be ugly.
sure.
The end is nigh
Re: Anarchism -
As soon as state-run law enforcement is dissolved, I'm robbing Jake's house and bending his mother over the front porch railing. Who's coming with me?
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I kill Gilly with a shotgun.
My neighbors, having known me for quite awhile, here out my side of the story (in the immediate aftermath). They are on the lookout for more attacks. They all send signals using their cellphone devices which puts the neighborhood on high alert until further notice. Messages are sent to subscribers within a certain perimeter.
I contact my PDA (private defense agency), who I pay a monthly fee to, to send out a guard (the officers wear advertisements on uniforms and cars to lower prices). They bring an ambulance for Gilly's remains, along with someone to protect/console my distressed mother. The guard will stay in the house for awhile, and I contact my dispute resolution service that I also pay a relatively low monthly fee to.
Being a non-risky person, I have a low crime credit score. This means that I pay less on my monthly bill to the DRO (dispute resolution organization), than someone who has a history of shoplifting, for instance. My DRO's employees contact Gilly's DRO (He did in fact have one; many rapists and thieves would not in their attempt to stay off the books and avoid economic ostracizement) and the information about the crime is relayed. Gilly, interestingly enough, had good credit. The DRO's agree to an arbitration: there is the suspicion that there was more to the crime, because of Gilly's non-violent history.
A week later, the arbitration resulted in a settlement (this case was fairly clear-cut afterall; third parties may be necessary in more controversial cases) and I was given money that covered damages and received restitution for Gilly's heinous act.
All of this occurs at least 10 times more quickly than in the state system.
But the truth is Gilly... you could do the same thing right now.
The police take three minutes on average to get to my house. The chaos will have ended by the time they get here.
I'm waiting for you.
The end is nigh
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
