Metal Reviews

I have to say I laughed my ass off at reading his attacks, and even felt a small sense of satisfaction that someone had done so. I didn't want to break my logical coherency by stooping to ad hominem fallacies.

wait, what.

where'd this discussion about communism come from?

COTB, you realize that the results of imperialism have led to far more dead people and injustices than three Soviet Unions would have, yes? Hell, entire cultures have been exterminated at the behest of capitalistic ventures, plus the millions and millions who have been worked to death or starved to death in sweatshops and as slaves since the 1500s. The only difference is that here, in a state that has been founded entirely on imperialism, communism is of course demonized.

for that matter, the Soviet Union was, as of yet, the only really large-scale application of marxist ideals and it was rapidly tainted by power-hungry madmen and misguided folk; China does not count as Mao had a whole 'nother set of ideologies which are referred to as Maoism. Vietnam does not count because of the incredibly rapid derailment from the ideals that headed Vietnam's initial revolution. Castroism is another separate doctrine (and for that matter, Cuba's current format is quite honestly not that bad, though it again deviates heavily from Marxism), you get the idea.

Sporting a flag supporting the base ideals of communism does not equate to directly saying 'Yes, Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot are my homeboys, 4/22 kill capitalist pigs every day.'

For that matter, the fact that I enjoy the results of imperialism is what some would dub 'accident of birth.' I currently donate large amounts of the money I make to socialist causes at home and overseas, and will probably either join Medicines Sans Frontieres or spend a lot of time working in a free clinic once I'm a practicing physician.

At base, Communism is the belief that we are all equal persons, that we should all share in the fruits of our labors, and that we should stand strong, together, a brotherhood. If you say you disagree with those values, then that's fine, you're entitled to be in opposition to me.

And before anyone asks, of course America is never going to be a communist state; the best we can hope for is something like Norway or Denmark.

And Popper arises! Ad hoc exceptions

I agree on the rest of your post, though. I'm in favour of socialism, however, not communism. I believe there is an inherent stratification to society.

If I agreed entirely with you, then I would say that it is our duty as free, sensible men to reduce the social stratification as much as we can.

Yes, exceptions. Calling those marxist states would be like calling America a pure democracy; it's not only misleading but inaccurate.

Sure, but does everyone deserve equal treatment? Some people are just different, some are better, and some are worse. That's just realism.

Listen, this "equal treatment" thing is a total red herring. The way I think of it, anyway. It assumes an idea of communism as a society entirely orchestrated by the state, who ensures meticulously that everyone gets allocated the same resources. That may have been the case in the Soviet Union (actually, it very obviously wasn't, but that's how it's presented in our media), but it's not necessarily communism as envisioned by believers in it.

Communism means that the workers control and own the means of production. The workers decide how the fruits of industry are allocated. If someone is turning up and not contributing anything, then I think it's entirely within the rules of a communist system that they can be penalised for it.

The difference is, they are penalised by their colleagues at work, rather than their boss or government.

How does this conflict with the idea of equal treatment? Whoever can contribute should contribute, and whoever does not contribute if it is within his ability to do so is voluntarily excluding himself from the sharing of the benefits.



"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Some have abilities beyond others; perhaps they are more proficient in the sciences or the maths, perhaps they are stronger, perhaps they are faster runners, perhaps they are quicker learners. Each of these people has the capacity to contribute and each of these people deserves to have their needs fulfilled.

How are any of these statements incorrect?

Is it entirely just for the more capable to support the less capable? Unless a person's performance level was something natural that he couldn't do anything about, I don't think it's just. Anyone can learn, or develop muscles. It's the people who get fucked by society and who have bad luck that need to be taken care of. Minimum rights and dignity are essential, but there should be a difference in the quality of life between people who are smarter at life than people who suck at it.

ANUS.com much?

American Nihilist Underground Society? Wtf? Hahaha.

You don't know it? Prepare for hours of bafflement. They have a Metal section which is incredibly highbrow, are borderline fascists, and nearly say things like your above post, but I misread it so they don't really agree with you so ignore me.

I don't think it does conflict. But the operative word is "treatment". I think that the way communism has been (mis)understood and (mis)represented over the years as being a subservient system when it ought to be an emancipatory one. "Equal treatment" to me implies an implicit "overlord" figure, ensuring that everybody gets the same thing.

Whereas, the system I think both you and me are arguing for, is one in which the allocation of resources is done autonomously by the people that actually produce and manage those resources. We assume, probably correctly, that if such a system existed the allocation of resources would be highly egalitarian. But the blanket usage of the term "equal treatment" implies that there isn't a way of excluding those that don't contribute anything, when actually that shouldn't be the case.

Semantics, really, but I think people get hung up on the idea of everyone simply being allocated an identical share of everything regardless of what they contribute, which I don't think is what communism is about.

My intention is not to condemn your belief system, but you were a bit over the line with (was it Metal Storm?, I can't recall), wouldn't you agree? I agree that this attitude to homosexuals in xtianity is hypocrisy, as is so much in religion in general, BTW.
No doubt; capitalism and communism both have valid ideas, it's only when humans get involved that they become corrupted. History illustrates this like a needle stuck in a groove, bouncing over the same note over and over again.
I reckon there will never be a perfect utopian world, as long as humans exist. There will always be the haves / have nots, the master / the yoke bearers, conquerers / the conquered.

I am apolitical, because politics are just another human construct, ergo, one in which corruption is an inevitablity.
Humans being humans, and all that.

This is true, I can see how someone would misinterpret what I've said and I think you've put it very succinctly.

Frigid, I think this is what we call a fundamental difference of opinion: under the system which I would espouse, all people would get the same circumstances in which to prove themselves. It's my opinion that everyone has some use to society; heck, we need more blue-collar laborers than doctors and lawyers anyway. But you're arguing for a form of compensation in which, say, doctors are given higher pay and benefits as a result of the profession that they are performing. I don't agree.

All the best doctors over the years would have been doctors regardless of the pay, the pay is not the important thing. The important thing is performing the profession that you were born for and performing it to the best of your ability. Compensation can come in many forms other than monetary rewards and better quality of life, I assure you.

On that note, why does the blue-collar laborer deserve a lower quality of life because he wasn't as good at math? Should we punish people for their mistakes as children forever?

We, as people, are in the distinct and enviable position to ensure that what pervades through nature, blood and conflict, is not strictly necessary to our state of being.

EDIT - cry, I wasn't assuming that you were, given that you were referring to soviet atrocities. I think your attitude makes sense, given the times we find ourselves in and our reeking, bloody history. But just because it makes sense does not mean I agree with it; though I can see why you would hold it. When all of us as people give up the thought that things can get better, that Sri Lankans will always be caught between violent uprisings and violent governments, that there will always be streets full of the starving in India, that America will continue espousing the violent ideals which have brought it to this current state, then all that becomes true; all that becomes self-fulfilling prophecy. I do not want to stand by idly and say 'oh well, the world is fucked, I'd best go not care,' because I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I did.

If by highbrow you mean tossing around a bunch of non-sequiturs and using vast amounts of words to say not a whole lot....

it can be an interesting site, though and to be fair, the contributors seem to be above average intelligence.

Why should learning maths be limited to childhood? I'm all for giving people all the opportunities possible, whether children or adults, to learn, educate themselves and so on. As it is now, a doctor earns more because the process of becoming a doctor was a lot more grueling than the process of becoming a construction worker. Not to say that construction workers don't deserve our respect and all that, but if someone was too lazy to study then they shouldn't complain about manual labour. Of course, in my ideal society, everyone would be able to educate themselves, and it would only be the people who chose not to or were too lazy who get left below.

Like I said, fundamental difference of opinion.

Of course there should be opportunities for people of all ages to learn, I just am of the opinion that nobody should be left in the gutter and similarly nobody elevated into the huge mansion.

EDIT - another clarification. See, people are fundamentally unequal from birth, this is a true statement. As soon as we are brought into the world, our genes have asserted themselves; some of us will be capable of learning amazing things. Some of us will be capable of learning our own names and maybe how to tie our shoes. The duty of the perfect society is to correct the wrongs that nature has wrought upon us.

What? I think you've spent too much time on the internet mate, too 'lazy' to study? What? Being a construction worker is probably harder and less rewarding than being a student.

I get the feeling that the comments you make are made because you look down upon people who aren't as talented at academic thngs as you.

No that's not really what I mean. I have a lot of friends who began working at 16 because they couldn't be arsed to continue studying. It's a kind of general short-sightedness that I consider lazy to some extent. The work itself is tiring, I know that. I'd hate to be a construction worker. I couldn't stand it. I don't look down on un-academic people, I just think that people who reject opportunities are making a mistake.

Well where I am people study to put off working because they're lazy.