Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
cunt sauce

Unlike capitalists, "communists" have no distinctions

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

Pretty insightful video, although the guy's voice and way he talks is a little annoying. He says "ideology" and "status" in that weird way that I can't stand.

 

Anyways, he argues that the media generally lumps communism into one, specific category, while capitalism is generally portrayed as being full of diversity.

 

Lumping Council Communists, Libertarian Socialists, Anarcho-socialists, Syndicalists, Communist Anarchists, Primitive Communists, Anarcho-syndicalists, State Communists, Troskyists, Stalinists, Maoists, Marxist-Leninists etc into the same category implies that Communism isn't a diverse ideology even though there seems to be more diversity than in Capitalism. We have Libertarian, Republican, Democrat, Progressive and Fascist to choose from.

 

I'm glad he mentioned the Spanish Civil War, I'm reading Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell right now.

 

 

I'm not really a Communist with a capital C. I'm more of an anarchist that would prefer a socialist economic model facilitated by the workers themselves rather an owner or ruling class of government organizing everyone else's labor. So that makes me an anarcho-syndicalist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How ridiculous.

 

Titling someone as a communist is effectively a short cut to communicate a belief in economic collectivism, which is generally regarded as the most important primary distinction by comparison to a capitalist system. For the sake of general conversation, further distinctions are not necessary. In contrast, the media doesn't address presidential candidates as the capitalist Palin, for example, because they are all debateably capitalists to to some extent. No one addresses me as 'that shoe-wearing bastard' because it is ubiquitous that people wear shoes. It is not necessary to make this distinction. That people do not give full credit to the specific communistic intellectual trend is no conspiracy, it is a reflection of societies disinterest in specifics. A general reference to the notion will suffice.

 

On another note, why do all these people have to stare, deadpan, into the web-cam to record their video? It's very off putting. Put a picture up or something.

 

Yup, if we are talking about Russia in the 20s i'm sure we would go in to great detail about the distinctions between different types of communism but in the context it is mostly discussed in this is not necessary.

 

On a side not homage to catalonia is great. I advise you also read 'looking back on the spanish civil war' I was stunned at the ammount of influence Orwell's experience in Spain had on the themes he addresses in 1984.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

his point at the very start about labelling one side in the spanish civil war is bullshit. Anyone who has any knowledge of the spanish civil war knows the diversity of opposition to franco. And for those that don't they are far more often referred to as 'republicans' as a general grouping than 'reds'. At the same time those that partook in the military coup against the republican government are broadly labelled as 'fascists' when this is not necessarily true.

 

-Also Communist states do not distinguish between different types of capitalism. Read media from communist countries and show me how often they refer to the 'capitalist' world and how often they distinguish between democratic capitalism, capitalist countries with social welfare states etc. etc.

 

Another point is that capitalism is an economic system, which is most commonly coupled with a social philosophy of liberalism, and a political system of democracy. Marxism is a philosophy that encompasses economic, social, and political spheres. So it is a lot easier and more meaningful to apply the single label 'communist' than 'capitalist'

 

 

also that guy is a douchebag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Also Communist states do not distinguish between different types of capitalism. Read media from communist countries and show me how often they refer to the 'capitalist' world and how often they distinguish between democratic capitalism, capitalist countries with social welfare states etc. etc."

 

you are very correct in this.

when an austrian economist says the word 'capitalism' they mean true laissez faire, with a government limited to protecting property rights, prosecuting fraud, enforcing contracts, etc. when michael moore or another variety of similar far left collectivist says 'capitalism' they really mean corporate fascism. because in a free society, no one has coercive control over another and if they do, they are guilty of a crime, it is very silly to try to say that laissez faire and corporate fascism are the same thing. many terms mean different things to different people. used to be 'liberal' in america was in favor of classical liberal limited government, founding generation theories on government, laissez faire and free trade. now liberal is basically synonymous with 'socialist.'

 

the michael moore/marxist types make a grave mistake in misrepresenting corporate fascism as capitalism. as they then blame any problems caused by corporate fascism on actual free market capitalism, and then they think more corporate fascism and shifting some players around will correct the problem caused by to much government in the first place. michael moore admits he actually dislikes corporatism, here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwQ41Yo60og

 

 

'libertarian socialist.' LOLZ. this is sort of like 'pretty ugly,' 'jumbo shrimp,' or 'military intelligence.'

 

granted anti-collectivists also make the same mistake, using communist to simply mean collectivist. but, the same ideological binding is consistent from a soft social democrat to a hard marxist. in general conversation though, i agree with harold, further distinctions are not really necessary

 

i love how CS claims to be an anarchist, yet i have yet to hear one area where CS thinks government (particularly promoting collectivism, removing property rights, and controlling the lives of others) shouldnt be involved in. the basic idea seems to be, once we kill millions removing their property rights, and we centrally plan all of society on the marxist model, and beat everyone to a bloody pulp then the government can 'wither' away but the 'revolution' will start right back up again and kill some more if anyone dares to resist the revolution or attempts to regain any property rights. the irony is that in a free market capitalist system, there is nothing preventing ANYONE from starting and/or living in a collective arrangement/society/community, where all the workers own the means of production. however, attempting to engage in capitalism in a 'anarcho syndicalist' world would mean someone would have to take you out. for some reason the collectivists rarely try it. whereas, the libertarians are trying it to live free, even though its not legal on a daily basis. from one person attempting to regain more freedom by operating a cash economy business to the free state project, they are trying to gain freedom. lets hear about the collectivists trying to live in socialist oppression.... more power to them. i support their right to live how they wish, so long as they dont harm anyone elses rights in the process.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How ridiculous.

 

Titling someone as a communist is effectively a short cut to communicate a belief in economic collectivism, which is generally regarded as the most important primary distinction by comparison to a capitalist system. For the sake of general conversation, further distinctions are not necessary. In contrast, the media doesn't address presidential candidates as the capitalist Palin, for example, because they are all debateably capitalists to to some extent. No one addresses me as 'that shoe-wearing bastard' because it is ubiquitous that people wear shoes. It is not necessary to make this distinction. That people do not give full credit to the specific communistic intellectual trend is no conspiracy, it is a reflection of societies disinterest in specifics. A general reference to the notion will suffice.

 

On another note, why do all these people have to stare, deadpan, into the web-cam to record their video? It's very off putting. Put a picture up or something.

 

Usually when I see someone called a communist images of Stalin and Pol Pot are automatically thrown up and they're in favor of mass murder.

 

These days calling someone a communist or marxist is usually incorrectly used as a slur against those who are in the left of the democratic party (see above post calling michael moore a marxist)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd love to hear your explanation of how michael moore is NOT an intellectual marxist

 

the problem with this whole 'defining' what this or that term means is that these words always change meaning. by a dictionary definition, i am a liberal. but if someone called me a liberal today, neither myself or anyone else would agree with this. today liberal is equivalent to someone who favors some sort of socialism from soft social democrats to hard marxists. so people use 'classical' in front of it for a distinction. capitalism was originally a slur created by marx to smear proponents of laissez faire. now laissez faire types embrace the term. conservative, when it was originally applied to political principles by russell kirk in the 1950's, used to mean someone who was in favor of a limited state, constitutional government and rights based on tradition, they were anti foreign adventurism, etc. now to be a conservative you must favor big government, militarism, and rule by presidential dictatorship. the democratic party traditionally stood for limited government and free trade, now it stands for the opposite. the republican party originally stood for big government, then it came out for small government when robert taft was around, and has come full circle again promoting big government, although less government than the democrats. bastiat was a libertarian, yet he sat on the left. when libertarians arose against the new deal in america, they were more likely on the right wing than not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from wikipedia:

Despite having supported Ralph Nader in 2000, Moore urged Nader not to run in the 2004 election so as not to split the left vote. On Real Time with Bill Maher, Moore and Maher knelt before Nader to plead with him to stay out of the race. In June 2004, Moore stated that he is not a member of the Democratic party. Although Moore endorsed General Wesley Clark for the Democratic nomination on January 14, Clark withdrew from the primary race on February 11.

 

 

On April 21, 2008, Moore endorsed Barack Obama for President, stating that Hillary Clinton's recent actions had been "disgusting."[48]

can't really see a genuine marxist supporting a bourgeois political candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hayek documented extensively how marxists in america changed their focus from total communism to using the political processes of control, regulation, etc instead of out and out calling for abolition of private property. you should peep some of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/directors/michael-moore-net-worth/

 

"Michael Moore is a controversial documentary filmmaker with a net worth of $50 million. Moore’s biggest three movies; Bowling For Columbine, Fahrenheit 911 and Capitalism A Love Story have earned over $300 million at the box office.

 

"Fahrenheit 911 raked in $230 million in theaters and another $3 million in DVD sales. After the theaters take their traditional 50% cut, that leaves roughly $130 million. Take away marketing, production and distribution expenses and Moore is conservatively left with $80 million. Moore was able to secure a deal from Miramax which guaranteed him 27% of his films net revenues, or roughly $21.6 million. Michael also was entitled to 50% of the profits of Sicko which are estimated to be $17 million.

 

"Moore is also the author of several best selling books and received a $1 million advance for “Dude Where’s My Country” plus a generous percentage of the book sales.

 

"Moore financed his first documentary Roger and Me by holding neighborhood bingo nights around his hometown of Flint Michigan. He eventually sold the documentary to Warner Brothers for $3 million."

 

In other words- he's not a very good Marxist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he is an ideological marxist that denounces everything capitalist, yet owes his entire existence to capitalism. much like all marxists. marxists in this country own property, engage in capitalist acts between consenting adults and work for 'the man.' nothing new. al gore's use of energy to run his insanely huge estate, rush limbaugh's drug snorting while he professes to be against drugs, noam chomsky and the kennedy's setting up trusts to protect their assets, bono and the clintons preaching about everyone needing to pay more in taxes, all while enjoying and seeking out lush tax breaks...

 

the list is endless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give me a break how about instead of posting facts about his income you look at the arguments he makes. Did Karl Marx collectivize all of his personal income? No. Does that mean he isn't a Marxist?

Michael Moore's arguments are underpinned by core Marxist political ideas. Class struggle is an underlying theme in ALL of Moore's books and movies that I have seen, he views capitalism as the elite few exploiting the masses for financial gain. He argues that the international system consists of rich core countries exploiting poor peripheral countries (Marxist IR theory).

 

And Qawee you really think Marxists wouldn't prefer Obama to McCain and actively support one candidate over the other? a commitment to Marxist principles does not preclude one from also being pragmatic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Give me a break how about instead of posting facts about his income you look at the arguments he makes. Did Karl Marx collectivize all of his personal income? No. Does that mean he isn't a Marxist?

Michael Moore's arguments are underpinned by core Marxist political ideas. Class struggle is an underlying theme in ALL of Moore's books and movies that I have seen, he views capitalism as the elite few exploiting the masses for financial gain. He argues that the international system consists of rich core countries exploiting poor peripheral countries (Marxist IR theory).

 

And Qawee you really think Marxists wouldn't prefer Obama to McCain and actively support one candidate over the other? a commitment to Marxist principles does not preclude one from also being pragmatic.

 

I know that true Marxists (this excludes the Stalinist American Communist Party, who have totally degenerated into being basically the far left wing of the Democratic party - another discussion altogether) would view Obama and McCain as being two heads of the same coin, and wouldn't support either one.

 

Your point about Marx and his income is pretty much moot, as Marx died in poverty in England. Moore is simply a left wing democrat who wants a nicer and gentler capitalism.

 

Also to angelofdeath: the whole owning of "private property" thing doesn't refer to the number of TVs someone has, or their Cadillac, its a reference to the means of production (ie factories, mines, etc..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that true Marxists (this excludes the Stalinist American Communist Party, who have totally degenerated into being basically the far left wing of the Democratic party - another discussion altogether) would view Obama and McCain as being two heads of the same coin, and wouldn't support either one.

 

Your point about Marx and his income is pretty much moot, as Marx died in poverty in England. Moore is simply a left wing democrat who wants a nicer and gentler capitalism.

 

Also to angelofdeath: the whole owning of "private property" thing doesn't refer to the number of TVs someone has, or their Cadillac, its a reference to the means of production (ie factories, mines, etc..)

 

SO what if he died in poverty? He was funded throughout his early life by his aristocratic wife's family and in later life through Friedrich Engels' family business. THe point is you don't have to give away all of your money to be an intellectual marxist. People aren't generally stupid enough to think that redistributing their own income means anything beyond charity while the capitalist system still exists. And if you use your money to finance your own research and public activity as Marx, Engels, and Moore all do, then it is more effective in working towards the ultimate goal of marxist revolution than if you just gave it away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SO what if he died in poverty? He was funded throughout his early life by his aristocratic wife's family and in later life through Friedrich Engels' family business. THe point is you don't have to give away all of your money to be an intellectual marxist. People aren't generally stupid enough to think that redistributing their own income means anything beyond charity while the capitalist system still exists. And if you use your money to finance your own research and public activity as Marx, Engels, and Moore all do, then it is more effective in working towards the ultimate goal of marxist revolution than if you just gave it away.

 

Where has Moore argued for the overthrow of capitalism along with a Marxist revolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a similar question would be...

 

which anti gunners who have never seen a gun control measure they dont like, actually publicly state that they dont want any civilian gun ownership or that they want to magically zap them away from all non government peoples?

 

hopefully as a gun enthusiast, you can see the similarities in your michael moore question.

 

i realize you are a hardcore anti capitalist, but really, lets drop the illusions for a second. in a general conversation, that doesnt include hardcore ideologues discussing the very fine details of specific belief systems, are people really going to make the case that people like michael badnarik or wayne allen root, gary johnson or ron paul, arent 'real' libertarians' because they favor a couple measures that some libertarians disapprove of? even though they are on the same page on 98% of the other stuff? are we going to not call someone a libertarian if they completely believe in the non aggression principle, but support 1 un-libertarian thing? do non libertarians really care that there is a divide between anarcho libertarians and minarchists?

i put this forward just to show that these finer details are left to the people who care about them. the general public talking in generalities dont. maybe its fine to point out that michael moore doesnt call for the overthrow of capitalism, although its the only logical conclusion there is to his marxist rhetoric. but lets be real here... moore is 95% of the way there just as gary johnson is 95% of the way to being a libertarian. i dont think gary johnson supporting ways to transition out of various federal government programs instead of instant abolition would change the minds of the general public of the guy being a libertarian. the small details on this would be ironed out by 'extremists' such as myself and others who care

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×