Yes, and you will keep repeating it until I acknowledge that this historical fact [and it certainly seems to be one] necessarily demonstrates that Communism is “inherently broken”.
And that, concommitantly, to the extent that others like the dude at Existential Comics argues that, “I bet you can’t name a single socialist country that successfully defended itself from being violently destroyed by the imperialist capitalist powers”, they have inherently miscontrued the true historical nature of the “capitalist juggernaut”.
No, it has nothing to do with that at all. It is all reflected in the objective fact that Communism is inherently flawed.
Whereas everyone knows that capitalism is inherently more virtuous.
From my perspective this is basically a distinction without a difference. If folks don’t think about Communism as you do it is either because they are right to think about it as they do from their side, or because their assumptions and logic are “stupid”.
Okay, how then do the philosophers, ethicists and political scientists go about determining who is in fact wrong here? What does that argument sound like? Especially given that rules of behavior must be enacted in any given community either facilitating or retarding the actual political reality of Communism.
There are assumptions which are wrong, assumptions which may be wrong or right (unclear), and assumptions which are right.
The same is true for logic.
That produces 9 possible end states in a truth table.
So, no. It’s not a distinction without a difference.
Huh?
I believe that there is an abundance of empirical evidence to show that the “dictatorship of the proletariat” in the Stalin Era resulted in many deaths and much repression. I believe that historically this assumption is probably correct.
But to assume in turn that this necessarily demonstrates that Communism is inherently flawed/broken is basically to argue that only if others unequivocally share your own interpretation of these facts do they truly undertand Communism. The arguments of those who try to construe it all from another perspective we can safely assume are inherently flawed in turn.
I’m the one down in the hole. I’m the one who is fractured and fragmented. I’m the one on the precipice of oblivion.
I could get hit by a bus tomorrow and yet I don’t care if oblivion is on the other side.
And how is that not embedded largely in the manner in which your own particular “I” here is the embodiment of dasein? This is how you came to think about oblivion. Given the sequence of experiences that predisposed you to go in that direction. But others [living very different lives] think about it in conflicting ways. Is there a way in which all rational men and women ought to think about it?
And, again, my focus is always on connecting the dots between morality on this side of the grave and ones perceived fate on the other side of it. Many religious folks will argue that Communists will burn in Hell because the behaviors they choose here and now are derived from an atheistic point of view.
Indeed, and if we bring it all down to earth pertaining to a particular conflicting good in a particular context, I can describe the manner in which I am down in that hole fractured and fragmented.
While you are still able to congeal your “self” into a frame of mind that is nothing like this at all.
Go ahead, bring it down to earth. You haven’t done it even once. Let’s see if you can.
Over and again I note that with respect to issues like Communism and abortion, I deem the arguments made by both sides – by many sides – as reasonable given the initial set of assumptions they make about human interactions. I am tugged in both directions. I am no longer able to convince myself that one frame of mind is in fact more reasonable, more virtuous than the other.
That’s what it means to be down in the hole. At least out in the is/ought world. I’m just still largely perplexed regarding how this all unfolds inside your head when someone challenges your values relating to things like Communism and abortion. In some respects you seem willing to go in the direction of “you’re right from your side, I’m right from mine”, while in other respects you get around to things being “inherently flawed/broken”.
And as for the role that God and religion plays in all of this for you, I may as well be discussing the Real God with James Saint.
Okay, how about Don Trump? Note something that he does over the next few days and we can commence a discussion/debate regarding the extent to which we believe it either is or is not “the right thing to do”
Okay, bring Donald Trump here so that he can make his claims and we can discuss them with him.
Okay, how about him insisting that there must be a wall built along the Mexican border. That this reflects the the most rational immigration policy.
Here are some arguments pro and con:
immigration.procon.org/view.ans … nID=000778
Now, my point is that both sides make arguments that are reasonable, given certain assumptions they start out with. I note these conflicting goods and am not able to construct the most reasonable argument of all. Both sides make points that the other side may or may not be able to deflect, but are not able to make entirely go away.
At the same time, I suggest that the values here embodied in any particular “I” are going to be as a result of the sequence of actual experiences they have had with this issue starting with the manner in which they were indoctrinated as children and then flowing out of the experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge they accumulated as more autonomous adults.