Marxism (Split from RCC thread)

[Knobbyboy88]

Now how about actually answering Stas' questions

I fail to see how I'm not doing this now. "Cronyist" describes most, if not all, "Marxist" regimes including the late period USSR.

Once again people, this honestly isn't a hard concept. How about we all try dropping the "warm and fuzzy" feelings that we apparently carry for Marxism for a moment, and actually face the objective facts pertaining to this case.

[Patrick Degan]

Now how about actually answering Stas' questions

I fail to see how I'm not doing this now. "Cronyist" describes most, if not all, "Marxist" regimes including the late period USSR.

It most definitely does NOT. Cronyism does not tie into any particular ideology.

Once again people, this honestly isn't a hard concept. How about we all try dropping the "warm and fuzzy" feelings that we apparently carry for Marxism for a moment, and actually face the objective facts pertaining to this case.

Strawmandering will not save you in this thread.

[Knobbyboy88]

It most definitely does NOT. Cronyism does not tie into any particular ideology.

Exactly. Now, explain to me why, if "any" ideology can succumb to cronyism, Mugabe's government being "cronyist" proves anything at all about his being a Marxist or not being a Marxist?

It is your silly argument, not mine.

[Patrick Degan]

It most definitely does NOT. Cronyism does not tie into any particular ideology.

Exactly. Now, explain to me why, if "any" ideology can succumb to cronyism

Which is not quite what I said, actually.

—Mugabe's government being "cronyist" proves anything at all about his being a Marxist or not being Marxist?

It is your silly argument, not mine.

You attempted to state that cronyism is a characteristic of Marxism. All the while evading challenge from myself and Stas Bush to actually demonstrate that you have competence to understand the subjects under discussion in this thread. You have not understood how Mugabe has not operated in a Marxist paradigm beyond mere rhetoric. He has not engaged in wholesale reorganisation of either industry or agriculture, and in the case of the latter, not only has he consistently not instituted land redistribution (a pillar of Marxist-Leninist economics) but also has not even instituted collectivisation (a pillar of Stalinist economics). He and his cronies have, in fact, done nothing with the assets they've seized control over. There is no programme at work in Zimbabwe; no plan, no organisation of any sort of the machinery of production in any sector. No matter what rhetoric Mugabe may spew or may have adopted during the revolutionary days, Mugabe has not applied a theory of any sort to his misrule of the country other than personal paranoia.

[Knobbyboy88]

Which is not quite what I said, actually.

Whether this is what you actually said or not is irrelevant. It is true.

You attempted to state that cronyism is a characteristic of Marxism.

No, I stated that cronyism is a well known and well established characteristic of nearly all "Marxist" governments, even if it is not an established characteristic of the ideology itself.

This has been my point all along. It is fallacious and dishonest to judge an ideology only by its "ideal" standard. What a system preaches in theory will often diverge wildly from what it actually manages to bring about in practice. As the history of the 20th century demonstrated rather clearly, this is especially true where the ideology of the radical left is concerned.

You cannot simply declare that such and such a thing will be considered to be "Marxist," and that everything else which does not meet these exact criteria will be simply be ignored. While such a practice may look good on paper, any study into such matters which goes beyond a mere cursory glance will quickly reveal that things are never quite so simple in reality.

Some regimes will surely claim to be "Marxist" which do not clearly follow Marxist principles (Cuba, North Korea, etca). Likewise, some nations which do not claim to follow marxian ideology may very show all the classic signs of "Marxist" government.

He has not engaged in wholesale reorganisation of either industry or agriculture

Once again, you are judging by the ideal. Has it ever occured to you that Mugabe may very well be a "Marxist," but that he is simply not a fanatical follower of its ideals, or that such goals have been rendered impractical by his political or military situation?

Once again, "Marxism," "Leninism," and "Stalinism" are not synonymous terms. They may be related systems, but one need not be a mass murdering zealot to practice "Marxist" ideology.

Besides, as I have already pointed out, Mugabe has pushed for some degree of "Nationalization" of agriculture, Zimbabwe's primary industry, throughout his "presidency." In his early years in office, he was impeded in this task by the British and a devastating civil war within with own party. In more recent years, he has been hindered by the strength of his political opposition.

There is no programme at work in Zimbabwe; no plan, no organisation of any sort of the machinery of production in any sector

So he is a corrupt and incompetent Marxist who sucks at his job... What else is new where such matters are concerned?

[K. A. Pital]

Dictionary.com (which is about as good a source as any given the circumstances)

I'm out of this debate - you've demonstrated your "level" of understanding of both Marxism and logic good enough. Your definition offered no criteria of discerning a Marxist from "not a Marxist", so... tschuss. You have not answered what is Marxism-Leninism either.

Whether this is what you actually said or not is irrelevant.

You should answer the point another debater states, not just make a blank statement of your own, idiot.

Besides, as I have already pointed out, Mugabe has pushed for some degree of "Nationalization" of agriculture, Zimbabwe's primary industry, throughout his "presidency."

1) Many non-Marxist governments did the same
2) Agriculture is not industry. Go read an econ textbook.

With that, I'm leaving you in Degan's capable hands. I had no idea you're so ignorant.

[ray245]

So he is a corrupt and incompetent Marxist who sucks at his job... What else is new where such matters are concerned?

That's assuming that he has even attempted to implement Marxist policy in his nation.

[Knobbyboy88]

I'm out of this debate - you've demonstrated your "level" of understanding of both Marxism and logic good enough. Your definition offered no criteria of discerning a Marxist from "not a Marxist", so... tschuss. You have not answered what is Marxism-Leninism either.

Lol. Whatever you say Stas...

Agriculture is not industry.

Good lord Stas, look it up. Agriculture (in this case meaning the rich white folk owning all the farms) was the backbone of Zimbabwe's economy. Things only went to shit after Mugabe reappropriated these properties by force in 2000.

That's assuming that he has even attempted to implement Marxist policy in his nation

What proof can you offer that he hasn't? Considering the fact that Mugabe actually belonged to a "Marxist" party and helped to bring about "one party" Socialist rule in Zimbabwe, it would seem that you are the one offering the extraordinary claims here, not me.

[Patrick Degan]

Which is not quite what I said, actually.

Whether this is what you actually said or not is irrelevant. It is true.

Do NOT presume to misquote or reinterpret me.

You attempted to state that cronyism is a characteristic of Marxism.

No, I stated that cronyism is a well known and well established characteristic of nearly all "Marxist" governments, even if it is not an established characteristic of the ideology itself.

And you don't even demonstrate that, nor do you tie it in to your catch-all redefinition of the Mugabe regime as Marxist.

This has been my point all along. It is fallacious and dishonest to judge an ideology only by its "ideal" standard. What a system preaches in theory will often diverge wildly from what it actually manages to bring about in practice. As the history of the 20th century demonstrated rather clearly, this is especially true where the ideology of the radical left is concerned.

You cannot simply declare that such and such a thing will be considered to be "Marxist," and that everything else which does not meet these exact criteria will be simply be ignored. While such a practice may look good on paper, any study into such matters which goes beyond a mere cursory glance will quickly reveal that things are never quite so simple in reality.

Some regimes will surely claim to be "Marxist" which do not clearly follow Marxist principles (Cuba, North Korea, etca). Likewise, some nations which do not claim to follow marxian ideology may very show all the classic signs of "Marxist" government.

We're not talking about No True Scottsman fallacies. We're talking about whether the operation of a given contry's system can be demonstrated as Marxist based on its actions, not its rhetoric.

He has not engaged in wholesale reorganisation of either industry or agriculture

Once again, you are judging by the ideal. Has it ever occured to you that Mugabe may very well be a "Marxist," but that he is simply not a fanatical follower of its ideals, or that such goals have been rendered impractical by his political or military situation?

No, I am judging by actions, or lack thereof.

Once again, "Marxism," "Leninism," and "Stalinism" are not synonymous terms. They may be related systems, but one need not be a mass murdering zealot to practice "Marxist" ideology.

It is YOU who had been wildly conflating these ideologies and you who has been applying very simpleminded definitions while ignoring actual mechanics, focussing instead on mere rhetoric.

Besides, as I have already pointed out, Mugabe has pushed for some degree of "Nationalization" of agriculture, Zimbabwe's primary industry, throughout his "presidency." In his early years in office, he was impeded in this task by the British and a devastating civil war within with own party. In more recent years, he has been hindered by the strength of his political opposition.

You don't even manage to get that one right. Through the 1990s, The Zimbabwean government was actually reacquiring land through repurchasing it from landowners, operating through the market and legal frameworks. It was only when Mugabe's party faced defeat in a constitutional referrendum that he seized upon a phony populist display to whip up support and empower a political millitia. And as for recent years, there's been virtually no opposition and the recent challenge doens't count for all that much since Mugabe was able to essentially nullify a national election and outmanoeuver his main opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai. There is virtually no opposition to Mugabe's continued rule either outside the ruling ZANU party or even within it. Looks like you're about as ignorant of recent Zimbabwean history as you are about political science.

There is no programme at work in Zimbabwe; no plan, no organisation of any sort of the machinery of production in any sector

So he is a corrupt and incompetent Marxist who sucks at his job... What else is new where such matters are concerned?

The fact that you continue to apply a term which does not fit Mugabe or his regime on no strength other than your repeated sayso.

[Samuel]

Good lord Stas, look it up. Agriculture (in this case meaning the rich white folk owning all the farms) was the backbone of Zimbabwe's economy. Things only went to shit after Mugabe reappropriated these properties by force in 2000.

Industry=/ economy.

Industry refers to manufacturing items. Economy refers to the sum of industry, agriculture and services.

[Knobbyboy88]

Do NOT presume to misquote or reinterpret me.

Fair enough. However, it is true.

And you don't even demonstrate that

This fact is literally common knowledge. I have neither the time nor inclination to become your google search bot simply to demonstrate what should be perfectly obvious.

Lets make this easier for both of us. Do you deny that the Marxist regimes of the 20th century fell victim to massive corruption and cronyism?

nor do you tie it in to your catch-all redefinition of the Mugabe regime as Marxist.

Once again, I am hardly the one redefining terms here. It is commonly accepted that Mugabe is a Marxist or at the very least borderline-Marxist leader. Honestly, just google the words "Mugabe" and "Marxist" and see what comes up.

You can consider this to be an "appeal to popularity" if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it is you people who are the ones trying to rewrite history here, not me.

ignoring actual mechanics, focussing instead on mere rhetoric.

Once again, I'm not the one apparently claiming that if a leader's policies do not look and function exactly like those of Fidel Castro or Stalin they are somehow not a "true" Marxist.

The Zimbabwean government was actually reacquiring land through repurchasing it from landowners, operating through the market and legal frameworks.

No, Mugabe signed a deal with the British in the 1970s which stated that no land reappropriations would take place for at least 10 years as long as the British Government was willing to pay for this compensation. This fact, in combination with the subsequent civil war and other various issues interfered with Mugabe making any significant land reappropriations throughout the 1980s and most of the 1990s. Mugabe has only even started making massive moves towards land reappropriation since 2000. These moves have been disasterous.

And as for recent years, there's been virtually no opposition and the recent challenge doens't count for all that much since Mugabe was able to essentially nullify a national election and outmanoeuver his main opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai.

What in God's name are you talking about? Mugabe has faced massive opposition from the MDC and other groups for years now.

The fact that you continue to apply a term which does not fit Mugabe or his regime on no strength other than your repeated sayso

Once again, he was a Marxist revolutionary during the 1970s and has ruled a Marxist government for most of his career. Frankly, how exactly you people get off flippantly declaring that it is somehow "impossible" that he could even consider being a Marxist is rather perplexing.

[Knobbyboy88]

Industry=/ economy.

Industry refers to manufacturing items. Economy refers to the sum of industry, agriculture and services.

Thank you for the clarification. However, this does not change the fact that Mugabe has been pushing to "Nationalize" the single most important sector of Zimbabwe's economy for virtually his entire presidency.

[K. A. Pital]

Whatever you say Stas...

No, bitch, not "whatever you say". I asked you for definitions of three terms, and the latter of which included a criterion to determine a Marxist from someone who is not one. So what is the criterion (criteria) to determine a Marxist from someone who is not a Marxist? You haven't answered that - and not even tried. Likewise, we don't look favourably here on strawmanning and especially misquoting the points of another person, shitstain.

It's you, fool, who had been just now proven to have even no idea of what is economy, what is industry and what is agriculture. Go suck dick.

This fact is literally common knowledge

References to "common knowledge" from someone who has been shown an ignoramus are worth shit. Besides, we don't take references to "common knowledge" here on SDN. In fact, had you done so in History, or any forum with slightly more stringent evidence rules, your thread would already be in the Hall of Shame.

[Knobbyboy88]

I asked you for definitions of three terms, and the latter of which included a criterion to determine a Marxist from someone who is not one.

Honest to God Stas! I already provided you with a definition of Marxism. I did not define "Leninism" as it is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion.

As for someone who is "not a Marxist," what in the Hell is that supposed to mean? Obviously, anyone who opposes the ideals of Socialism and collectivism, and does not endorse the "class warfare" model of history (i.e. the traditional "Marxist" values") is not a "Marxist." That much should be readily apparent even to someone so pig headed as yourself.

However, it is possible for someone to follow some of these ideas, if not all, and still be thought of as sharing something in common with "Marxist" ideology.

What more are you looking for here exactly?

References to "common knowledge" from someone who has been shown an ignoramus are worth shit.

Lol. Once again, whatever you say Stas....

So far, I haven't been impressed with what you have to offer.

[K. A. Pital]

Honest to God Stas! I already provided you with a definition of Marxism

From "Dictionary.com"? Sorry boy, you got to do better than that if you're willing to debate it.

Obviously, anyone who opposes the ideals of Socialism and collectivism, and does not endorse the "class warfare" model of history (i.e. the traditional "Marxist" values") is not a "Marxist."

1) The ideal of socialism is communism. Has Mugabe proclaimed Zimbabwe to be working towards communism?
2) The ideal of collectivism is nationalization. As it has been shown, Mugabe has not, in fact, collectivized and nationalize en masse neither the industries, nor the lands of his nation.
3) The proof of Mugabe's public espousal of class warfare model of history is on you since you now claim it should be endorsed by the leader.

So on all three points, Mugabe fails spectacularly to be a Marxist. I don't know if you just invented these criteria right now, but even they fail to demonstrate what you try to prove.

However, it is possible for someone to follow some of these ideas, if not all, and still be thought of as sharing something in common with "Marxist" ideology.

So anyone following even one small part of Marxist ideology, is automatically a Marxist for you? Yes or no?

Once again, whatever you say Stas....

If you make a contentious statement of fact and someone asks for evidence, you must either provide it or withdraw the claim. Do not call it "self evident", restate it in different words, force the other person to prove your claim is not true, or use other weasel techniques to avoid backing up your claims.

Hey bitch, it seems you're trying to play the game of breaking the rules. That is very, very unfortunate for you.

[Knobbyboy88]

I'm sorry Stas, but as long as you seem to insist on mulishly arguing right past my points, there is very little point in carrying on this conversation. It almost feels like you're not even listening.

1) The ideal of socialism is communism. Has Mugabe proclaimed Zimbabwe to be working towards communism?

As I have stated numerous times, THE "IDEAL" IS IRRELEVANT! No system is "ideal" in practice, least of all Marxism. The sooner you get this fact through your thick skull, the better.

The ideal of collectivism is nationalization.

Once again, Mugabe has been pushing for just this for most of his presidency.

The proof of Mugabe's public espousal of class warfare model of history is on you since you now claim it should be endorsed by the leader

Once again, Mugabe has blatantly argued for a "class warfare" model of society in the form of "anti-colonialism" for his entire career!

Have you simply been jamming your fingers in your ears and ignoring me?

So on all three points, Mugabe fails spectacularly to be a Marxist.

A spectacularly bad Marxist cannot still be a Marxist? Since when?

If you make a contentious statement of fact and someone asks for evidence, you must either provide it or withdraw the claim. Do not call it "self evident", restate it in different words, force the other person to prove your claim is not true, or use other weasel techniques to avoid backing up your claims.

Wow...Ok, so do I have to prove that the sky is blue for you too Stas?

EDIT: If the board deems it necessary, I will try to locate some sources to verify the massive corruption and cronyism that took place in Marxist nations. I haven't the foggiest idea where I would locate relevant and concise sources which would be capable of verifying such an incredibly broad claim, however.

From "Dictionary.com"? Sorry boy, you got to do better than that if you're willing to debate it.

Lol. if you have a problem with it Stas, you are free to provide one more to your liking. I have already fulfilled my obligation on this point.

[K. A. Pital]

As I have stated numerous times, THE "IDEAL" IS IRRELEVANT!

Obviously, anyone who opposes the ideals of Socialism and collectivism, and does not endorse the "class warfare" model of history (i.e. the traditional "Marxist" values") is not a "Marxist."

Once again, Mugabe has blatantly argued for a "class warfare" model of society in the form of "anti-colonialism" for his entire career!

"Anti-colonialism" is not a form of class warfare. Is Ghandi a Marxist?

A spectaculaarly bad Marxist cannot still be a Marxist?

Is Ghandi a Marxist?

Ok, so do I have to prove that the sky is blue for you too Stas?

That were the rules, bitch. Now watch out, because this board has an administration which has to enforce the rules. One of the rules is "you must either provide it or withdraw the claim. Do not call it "self evident". Suck it up, bitch.

I have already fulfilled my obligation on this point.

So have I. I have demonstrated for everyone in this thread that you have:
1) no idea of logic
2) no idea of Marxism
3) spectacularly bad understanding of high school economy (industry, agriculture - who the fuck cares, LOL)
4) contempt for the rules of this board
5) you invent definitions of Marxism as you go along, and spout bullshit. Endorsing anti-colonialism is now the same as class warfare. I guess Ghandi and the American revolution were Marxist. What a total idiot you are.

[Knobbyboy88]

Obviously, anyone who opposes the ideals of Socialism and collectivism, and does not endorse the "class warfare" model of history (i.e. the traditional "Marxist" values") is not a "Marxist."

Did you just completely miss the fact that I said this...

However, it is possible for someone to follow some of these ideas, if not all, and still be thought of as sharing something in common with "Marxist" ideology.

...not a sentence later, or do you simply not care?

Besides, you haven't demonstrated that one must follow the "ideal" form of Marxism at its most extreme in order to be considered a "Marxist."

"Anti-colonialism" is not a form of class warfare.

In the way that Mugabe and various other "Leftist" movements and leaders throughout the Third World argue for it, "Anti-Colonialism" most certainly is a form of class warfare.

It is basically just a reiteration of the "we can't get ahead because the evil upper class (in this case, the Capitalist upper class of the Western World) are oppressing us" argument that Marxists have used for centuries.

Is Ghandi a Marxist?

Ghandi is completely irrelevant here. Do not throw out red herrings.

1) no idea of logic
2) no idea of Marxism
3) spectacularly bad understanding of high school economy (industry, agriculture - who the fuck cares, LOL)
4) contempt for the rules of this board
5) you invent definitions of Marxism as you go along, and spout bullshit. Endorsing anti-colonialism is now the same as class warfare. I guess Ghandi and the American revolution were Marxist. What a total idiot you are.

Lol. Once again, whatever you say Stas...

Baseless ad hominem attacks, straw men, red herrings, and just generally stating your own (in this case biased) personal opinions as if they were facts does not make them so.

[ray245]

However, it is possible for someone to follow some of these ideas, if not all, and still be thought of as sharing something in common with "Marxist" ideology.

That would mean US is a marxist state by your definition.

In the way that Mugabe and various other "Leftist" movements and leaders throughout the Third World argue for it, "Anti-Colonialism" most certainly is a form of class warfare.

It is basically just a reiteration of the "we can't get ahead because the evil upper class (in this case, the Capitalist upper class of the Western World) are oppressing us" argument that Marxists have used for centuries.

Then same can be said for Britain then. Hell, you might as well call a progressive tax a marxist idea as well.

Ghandi is completely irrelevant here. Do not throw out red herrings.

Why?

[Knobbyboy88]

That would mean US is a marxist state by your definition.

That would depend. I think that quite a few of the more radical "progressives" in the United States could quite possibly be "Marxist" or at the very least Marxist influenced.

There are obviously degrees of distinction on this subject.

[Knobbyboy88]

Then same can be said for Britain then. Hell, you might as well call a progressive tax a marxist idea as well.

You are, of course, aware that the flat tax is almost purely the result of the meddling of "Democratic Socialists" in Western nations, right?

Why?

Ghandi had some ideas that were certainly vaguely "Socialist" in nature, but his situation and ideology were simply too far removed from anything really covered in this discussion to be relevant here.

[ray245]

You are, of course, aware that the flat tax is almost purely the result of the meddling of "Democratic Socialists" in Western nations, right?

So if they have some policies that are socialistic, then by your definition, they are a marxist state.

Ghandi had some ideas that were certainly vaguely "Socialist" in nature, but his situation and ideology were simply too far removed from anything really covered in this discussion to be relevant here.

Didn't you say that as long as it is socialistic, it is good enough to be called a marxist?

[Knobbyboy88]

So if they have some policies that are socialistic, then by your definition, they are a marxist state.

Not necessarily. I simply think that Mugabe is certainly more than "close enough" to what Marxism advocates to be considered in that general category.

Didn't you say that as long as it is socialistic, it is good enough to be called a marxist?

No, I said that they could be considered to share some ideological traits in common with Marxism. In any case, I would say that Ghandi is a rather distant relation.

[ray245]

So if they have some policies that are socialistic, then by your definition, they are a marxist state.

Not necessarily. I simply think that Mugabe is certainly more than "close enough" to what Marxism advocates to be considered in that general category.

When is a person close enough to be called a marxist?

[K. A. Pital]

However, it is possible for someone to follow some of these ideas, if not all, and still be thought of as sharing something in common with "Marxist" ideology

Yeah, "sharing something in common with Marxist ideology" is decidedly not the same as "being a Marxist" you dumb fucking retard, so you just basically conceded. Thanks, and sayonara.

Ghandi is completely irrelevant here

Ghandi is anti-colonialist. Does that mean he is a Marxist? No? Well fuck you, moron boy.

So "Mugabe is "sharing something in common with Marxist ideology", but that doesn't make him a Marxist even per your own convoluted definitions. Suck it up, re-read the above quote, and be gone.

I simply think that Mugabe is certainly more than "close enough"

No, you said he's a Marxist, you backtracking bitch.

Besides, you haven't demonstrated that one must follow the "ideal" form of Marxism at its most extreme in order to be considered a "Marxist."

I don't have to. No Marxist government in history followed the ideal form of Marxism, because all Marxist governments have been Marxist-Leninist, which itself is a current of Marxism, even if the most influential (and this is why Marxism-Leninism is relevant to the debate, idiot). However, they had key traits, one of which was officially declaring Marxism a state ideology and striving to the ideals of Marxism (like proclaiming the advance to communism), and the other, implementing Marxism in practice by nationalizing industries (and collectivizing agriculture if we're talking about Stalinist currents in particular). You have shown no such actions by Mugabe. Sorry.