is it safe to come back..?

[TomViolenz]

Let's get this crystal clear. There is no such thing as the 'totalitarian implementation of socialism'. That is an oxymoron. The closest thing to that description is STALINISM. But Stalinism is not fascism. Fascism is a tool for defending capitalism, as in Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy. Stalinism is the bullshit pretend socialism of the USSR etc. Neither fascism nor Stalinism are forms of socialism — both are anti-socialist in fact. However I don't want to derail this pathetic non-thread. If you want to discuss this further please start a dedicated thread.

Stalinism, yes. Totalitarianism led by a guy named Stalin. Fascism is the following:


fas·cism noun \?fa-?shi-z?m also ?fa-?si-\
: a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government

: very harsh control or authority

Full Definition of FASCISM

1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Totalitarianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Totalitarianism or totalitarian state is a term used by some political scientists to describe a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible.[1]
The concept of totalitarianism was first developed in a positive sense in the 1920s by the Italian fascists.

Was Stalinism actually Totalitarianism?
http://blog.myedonline.com/hsc-modern-h ... tarianism/

So, you can have a fascist/totalitarian implementation of socialism: an imposition of socialist economic and social controls defined by a state apparatus that you can't argue with. Or you can have a fascist implementation of capitalism.

You couldn't argue with Stalin, you couldn't argue with the other totalitarians of that time, and you can't argue with the totalitarians of this time.

Sorry but this doesn't fly here! You do an incomplete DICTIONARY definition of Stalinism and then compare that incomplete definition to Totalitarism and Fascism. So basically what you are saying is, all the things these three have in common, they have in common, so they must be the same!
Do you think we are stupid?!

[TomViolenz]

The truth is that you are incapable of defining "need" as a calculable economic unit

I think the point is rather that need shoudn't be a calculable economic unit.
What you seem to not understand about the difference between left and right, is not so much the difference in determining where the problems lie, but rather what the solutions shall be. As radical an idea as trying to not see need as an economical unit, would just never occur to you. Yet it is so obvious, that this is where the main problem lies with humanity!

Need as a unit?? I don't understand. There is justification of the fulfillment of a "need" that you cannot self-fulfill*. If I need money from the bank, I have to justify the fulfillment of that need with what is supposedly a calculated ability to repay it and in turn cover their need for interest on the loan.

Individual need is an economic driver, you could say that calculating the volume of similar needs (for polenta, toys, shoelaces or anti-snore-nose-strips) is useful for providers of goods, but is a need a unit? The fulfillment thereof is a unit, it occurs or not. But a need is not a unit.


* This is where the forum I recall would start talking about wanking.

You still don't get it. What one needs, shall not be kept from him!
The right to live, the right to sustain, the right to health care, the right to education, the right to just governance in the pursuite of happiness and wisdom.
We "lefties" dream, you "righties" just gave up and now only care about youselves and your closest of kin.

[re:dream]

You still don't get it. What one needs, shall not be kept from him!
The right to live, the right to sustain, the right to health care, the right to education, the right to just governance in the pursuite of happiness and wisdom.
We "lefties" dream, you "righties" just gave up and now only care about youselves and your closest of kin.

The debate about needs as units seems to be running into some people talking past each other.

As I understand it, some of these points about units of need relates to the difficulties of administering a system that tries to give 'to each according to their needs' (TEACTN for short).

Problem is: what is a need? How do we determine whose need is more important than whose? I need a small midi controller with weighted keys. You want an education for your kids. Now, I am not saying these needs can't be adjudicated. Clearly my keyboard (sorry, joking), clearly your kids' education is more important than my keyboard. But someone has to administer this system. Someone has to allocate and rank. Pretty soon you have a bureaucracy at the centre of society, trying to adjudicate between people's needs; and people being people, those decisions quickly end up being contested. Powerful as the notion of TEACTN may be, and appealing as the notion of the fundamental nature of needs such as survival, etc, are, in practice you soon come up against the reality that different people have different values, and it is very hard to establish an broadly accepted, ultimate basis for distinguishing between different needs. Especially in a multicultural society where different groups of people have different core values. Hence the notion that there is no final, ultimate, objective or broadly accepted 'unit' in terms of which we can compare or assess or adjudicate between all the competing needs in a society.

Enter (or re-enter!) the notion of the market. A system based on allocating resources based on the notion that what people want, they can will compete and pay for. You don't need an objective unit of need. You leave it to people to decide how much they need something, how they weigh that need relative to others (Push or playstation? Food or house?) and let them make the decision themselves. In a fairly administered market, so the theory goes, people will wheel and deal, will on average seek to make the best deal for them based on the circumstances, and you get to optimality that way.

Except that in spite of the theories of free market theories, markets don't work like this in the real world. In a world in which resources are unequally distributed, not everyones ability to secure resources is the same. The wealthy and powerful can monopolise resources. And the same factor that undermines TEACTN - the fact that people usually have a pretty bottomless definition of 'what I need right now' (hungry ghosts, anyone?) means that you quickly have a situation such as that which pertained in the 2000s, in which investment bankers in New York city could with a straight face assert that anything less than USD 20 million would basically leave them feeling poor and insecure. The long term consequences of that is an increasingly unstable world, polarized more and more into the haves and the have nots. Etcera, etcetera, I am not going to argue the point; you either agree with me or you don't

So neither the old idealist communist notion of the state withering away and politics giving way to the administration of things (TEACTN) nor Ayn Rand World, where a society of sovereign and independent heroes wheel and deal and steal each other's women (I am being strictly neutral in my characterizations, as you can see) are really much help.


In between these two extremes there are, of course, a wide range of intermediate options and mixes, each with their strengths and weaknesses. Not that we want to discuss those here, it seems. The current debate seems to be all about the dubious pleasures of polarization.

I digress. The main point I am making is that the notion that need is not easily quantifiable in terms of objective units is actually a pretty important idea in the discussion between these different world views. I hope that helps.

[Galt]

Resources aren't infinite, whereas as need, which is economically indistinguishable from want, is limitless. And since it is not possible to measure need, neither can you distribute it rationally. This is why any system that allocates resources based on need is destined to fail. This is why Funks couldn't answer the question of apartment allocation, because under socialism, there is simply no metric by which to measure how much living space each person should have.

Marxists recognize this crippling flaw in their theory, but when pushed, most typically go into quote spamming mode, rather than facing reality and renouncing their false god, as reason would require.

[TomViolenz]

We were talking about specific functions in ones live, where we as a society can decide that a lower bound shall not be breached. The way this should work shall still be up for democratic decisions and market economy rules.

[Galt]

Not according to Marxists.

[mikemc]

Sorry but this doesn't fly here! You do an incomplete DICTIONARY definition of Stalinism and then compare that incomplete definition to Totalitarism and Fascism. So basically what you are saying is, all the things these three have in common, they have in common, so they must be the same!
Do you think we are stupid?!

I think you don't understand the notion of the first definition in the dictionary being the most succinct, and that it is the essence of things that makes them to be of the same category, not the same.

If you want to argue an orange is different than a tangerine, I'll just agree. If you want to argue that a grapefruit and an orange is not a type of citrus fruit, then that's just silly.

Totalitarianism is the bad guy. Doesn't matter if it comes in capitalist, socialist or poopalist.

which makes me wonder, where IS LSZ?

[mikemc]

Fascism and Stalinism are both totalitarian, but that does not make both words synonymous with totalitarianism.

That's fine, it is not my point to make them the same, identical. It is my point that they are understood as being a) real world historical *examples*, implementations and b) of a type of totalitarianism, that is, totalitarian.

So, Stalinism was a totalitarian implementation of communism/socialism.

Why is that such a difficult concession, if it is a concession at all? Seems kind of silly.

[scott nathaniel]

Why don't y'all just qualify your units of need. For example:
In order for Galt to bust a nut, he needs at least one testicle in his mouth.
I now see the problem of endless qualification and quantification!
1.Does this need of Galt then require the testicle to be a attached to a body? [yes] [no]
2.If yes, would there be a specific species need, i.e. man and not goat? [yes] [no]
3.If yes to 1, would a working pulse contribute to the need of Galt
... ad nauseum.

Galt is correct. Need can not be quantified with any sort of practicality for the very fact that qualification enters an infinite loop.

[beats me]

which makes me wonder, where IS LSZ?

This is the last news we got on him several months ago.

I SINCERELY DOUBT WE'LL BE HEARING FROM POOPSTATION. LET'S JUST SAY THAT RIGHT NOW HE'S PAYING THE PIPER. WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND AND ALL THAT...

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU COME ONTO THIS FORUM AND START TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER MAN'S WIFE.

[TomViolenz]

Not according to Marxists.

Yeah, I should have added: IMO

[TomViolenz]

Sorry but this doesn't fly here! You do an incomplete DICTIONARY definition of Stalinism and then compare that incomplete definition to Totalitarism and Fascism. So basically what you are saying is, all the things these three have in common, they have in common, so they must be the same!
Do you think we are stupid?!

I think you don't understand the notion of the first definition in the dictionary being the most succinct, and that it is the essence of things that makes them to be of the same category, not the same.

If you want to argue an orange is different than a tangerine, I'll just agree. If you want to argue that a grapefruit and an orange is not a type of citrus fruit, then that's just silly.

Totalitarianism is the bad guy. Doesn't matter if it comes in capitalist, socialist or poopalist.

which makes me wonder, where IS LSZ?

ts ts, oh my....

[H20nly]

this is all very interesting... especially the part about goat gonads but none of it answers the real call to action - the answer to the perpetual question.... Where is LSZ?

[Bean Machine]

Resources aren't infinite, whereas as need, which is economically indistinguishable from want, is limitless.

says you

And since it is not possible to measure need, neither can you distribute it rationally.

says you

This is why any system that allocates resources based on need is destined to fail.

says you

This is why Funks couldn't answer the question of apartment allocation,

says you

because under socialism, there is simply no metric by which to measure how much living space each person should have.

so you say

Marxists recognize this crippling flaw in their theory,

support or retract

but when pushed, most typically go into quote spamming mode, rather than facing reality and renouncing their false god, as reason would require.

liar

Ha ha! This has to be the most laughably pathetic excuse for a refutation I've seen in quite some time.

Watching Funken "defend" his pet ideology is like watching an epileptic retard try to eat an ice-cream cone while standing under a disco ball.

[scott nathaniel]

Where is LSZ?

She grew up. She got married and moved out of Hopkins County.
ffs