new capitalism vs communism thread

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Ned
Tripledoc, some would say that the Roman Army control of society caused the decline.

That and some awful leadership...

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
Tripledoc, some would say that the Roman Army control of society caused the decline.

I agree. Tin-pot regimes are definately to be avoided.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Did you know that in Europe alone 100.000 workers, and possibly their families too, are going to die, because they were told asbestos is a safe building material.

Asbestos is so dangerous that when the women washed their men's working clothes, the micro fibres would get into their lungs too.

Did you know in WW2 that thousands of men died in freindly fire, from barrage artillery, fighter bomber aircraft and a lack of command/control?

This, like your comment, while true, has totally no bearing on the topic.

[Tripledoc]

Then why don't the Capitalists give medals to workers?

[Az]

*cough* aren't we getting sidetracked?

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Then why don't the Capitalists give medals to workers?

They do better than that.

They give a unequalled standard of living.

Where would prefer to get live-saving medical treatment?

It wouldn't be Cuba I bet!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
In my opinion, that would be the accountable managers. A democratic company doesn't get rid of the management (much like a democratic country doesn't get rid of the government), but it makes the management accountable.

Quote:

Second, can the decisions of the workers be overridden? What if they decide to just play Civ all day?

No. Just like the decisions of a Parliament shouldn't be overriden.
But in my model, the workers don't take each and every decision. WRT the company as a whole, they voice their opinion on most important issues, and they give orientations to the management. OTOH, workers should have a high say within their own department, wrt work conditions, efficiency of work, etc.

Shouldn't or can't? Surely some branch of government elected by the people is able to override the decisions of the workers - otherwise the workers are in complete control of the country, and can do whatever they want.

Quote:

Third, should the military be similarly democratic?

I don't think so. The military, unlike any other institution, is all about immediate survival, and maximal efficiency simply in order not to get gutted.
However, much say should be given regarding the working conditions, individual demands from the soldiers should be accepted if possible, and we can imagine some extent of democracy in calmer missions.

, though that leeway would have to be allowed by the commanders, not encoded in the law (it would be too difficult to legislate what was a "calmer mission").

Quote:

Finally, in light of the third question, since the military is an organization that serves the state (and through it, the people), and since all of those other companies are organizations that serve the state (and people), why should the military have any different rules from the rest of them? Why should the rest of the companies have any different rules than the military? (Oh, and how would emergency services like firefighters and policement work, if there were different rules for companies and the military - like the military or like a company?)

Very few companies or public services are in the business of killing or being killed. Only the police is comparable to the military in this regard (and I don't think the police should be entirely democratic as well). Firefighters, like any other public service, should have clear objectives given by the State, but the firefighters should have as much leeway as possible in organizing themselves to reach these objectives.

I understand that they have leeway - my question is, is this leeway mandated by the constitution or allowed by the government? It seems to me that the company, because it is serving the people, would have to be accountable to them, otherwise it could do whatever the hell it wanted (even if it was given "objectives").

My point with all of this is that a top-down hierarchy is necessary in any organization that serves more than itself, so that it is accountable to more than itself. The President gives orders and they are carried out by the people below him, because the President is elected and they are not.

[Az]

Shouldn't or can't? Surely some branch of government elected by the people is able to override the decisions of the workers - otherwise the workers are in complete control of the country, and can do whatever they want.

Yeah, and we can't let THAT happen.

[Ned]

The problem with a democratic military is also illustrated by the many examples of different units of the Roman Army electing different Imperators.

Civil War.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by curtsibling


They do better than that.

They give a unequalled standard of living.

Where would prefer to get live-saving medical treatment?

It wouldn't be Cuba I bet!

The capitalists did not give nothing. It was only due to the threat by the East that the social-fascists couped the executive and decided that the workers should have some crumbs from the table too, to prevent the overturning of the captalist order.

The workers were moved from their squalid living conditions in the urban centres, and moved to the suburbs to linger. They even then had to accept unnaturally high prices, which were to be paid off annually to the huge funds whose money were used to invest in the capitalist enterprize.

Hitler gave each member of the working class a Volkswagen.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
The capitalists did not give nothing. It was only due to the threat by the East that the social-fascists couped the executive and decided that the workers should have some crumbs from the table too, to prevent the overturning of the captalist order.

So you prefer the pure agrarian soviet life?
Why are you sitting at a computer then?

Do you actually recognise the excesses of men like Mao and Stalin?

Or are you totally blinkered?

Originally posted by Tripledoc The workers were moved from their squalid living conditions in the urban centres, and moved to the suburbs to linger. They even then had to accept unnaturally high prices, which were to be paid off annually to the huge funds whose money were used to invest in the capitalist enterprize.

Oh! Woe to the poor people living in the suburbs!

Unable to be liquidated by a people's soviet for disloyalty!

I think you need to be deprived of your good standard of living for a while, in order to stop taking it for granted.

PS
Have you ever done a day's work?

Originally posted by Tripledoc Hitler gave each member of the working class a Volkswagen.

A Volkswagen with tracks and 75mm gun, called a Panzer - and told the working class to invade Russia.

And you know where Hitler's socialism got him.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by curtsibling
In communism, people work to the end of their lives.

Why should there be no retirement system in communism?

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Spiffor


Why should there be no retirement system in communism?

There is only retirement to gulag.

[curtsibling]

@Spiffor:

You appear to be a prominent follower of this commie thing.

Answer me a question, if you will:

Would you be willing to give up all your posessions and owned goods, to become a destitute worker in a communist regime?

If you were satisfied that the leaders were true to what you believe?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by curtsibling
So you prefer the pure agrarian soviet life?

Where did I say that? People have the misconception that agrarian life is romantic, but I know from my own experience that it is not. It is blood and feces.

Why are you sitting at a computer then?

To spread communist propaganda.

Do you actually recognise the excesses of men like Mao and Stalin?

Do you realize the excesses of capitalism and Imperialism. How was the British empire capable of providing each labouer in Britain with sugar lumps to put in their tea. Simple. They took slaves from Africa, and put them to work on the sugar plantations in the Caribean. The english labourer was thus only provided with his small luxuries due to the fact that this was produced by breaking th back of slaves.

Or are you totally blinkered?

No, are you?

Oh! Woe to the poor people living in the suburbs!

They are not poor. they are simply not aware that their wealth is currently being taken away from them. Wealth disparity in Europe is growing as we speak.

Unable to be liquidated by a people's soviet for disloyalty!

Do you actually believe this propaganda. Stalin was personally responsible for the eradication of reactionary elements within the army and the communist party. The huge loss of life in the Soviet Union prior to the invasion by Nazi Germany and the subsequent even huger loss of life that resulted in, was not done as a willfull act, but was mainly due to poor and erratic planning

I think you need to be deprived of your good standard of living for a while, in order to stop taking it for granted.

I am not taking it for granted. See above. The good living standards are evaporating.

PS
Have you ever done a day's work?

I have shoveled chickenshit at a chicken farm in Canada.

A Volkswagen with tracks and 75mm gun, called a Panzer - and told the working class to invade Russia.

And you know where Hitler's socialism got him.

Hitler was not a socialist.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Would you be willing to give up all your posessions and owned goods, to become a destitute worker in a communist regime?

Read the thread, and you'll notice that I certainly don't advocate public ownership of individual goods. The huge majority of commies, myself included, advocate the public ownership of production means, but also that personal property (watch, car, TV, house, etc.) should be left untouched, or mostly untouched.

In short, NO. And that's perfectly consistent with communism. The idea that communism is about communalizing everything is a misconception.

[Spiffor]

Curtsibling:
It may be good for you to read this thread from the beginning. At least, the posts by Azazel and myself.
Your comments in this threads seem to be fueled by a throng of misconceptions, the first one being that commies all advocate a Stalinist system (we have exactly one stalinist in Apolyton, and that's because he's from Siberia and mourning the former glory of his country).

Azazel and myself have presented two different models of what an efficient and humane communist / socialist system could look like (mine was at post #29 IIRC). You may be interested to see that commies aren't all bloodthirsty ideologues, far from it.

[curtsibling]

But communism will never be adopted in any major Western nation, so the argument is moot.

[Kuciwalker]

This is 'Poly.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Where did I say that? People have the misconception that agrarian life is romantic, but I know from my own experience that it is not. It is blood and feces.

Wannabe communists in the West think they will not have to do any dirty work, in that production happens magically by itself.

Originally posted by Tripledoc
To spread communist propaganda.

Pity no-one is interested.

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Do you realize the excesses of capitalism and Imperialism. How was the British empire capable of providing each labouer in Britain with sugar lumps to put in their tea. Simple. They took slaves from Africa, and put them to work on the sugar plantations in the Caribean. The english labourer was thus only provided with his small luxuries due to the fact that this was produced by breaking th back of slaves.

Add Europe, Russia and the USA to that list.

So the Russian Soviets in the 1920-30s urged all those Transcaucausians and
central Asians to happily slave till death from the goodness of their hearts?

Cut down on your LSD intake please.

Originally posted by Tripledoc
No, are you?

I can see the evil of communism plain as day.

Originally posted by Tripledoc
They are not poor. they are simply not aware that their wealth is currently being taken away from them. Wealth disparity in Europe is growing as we speak.

So giving the corrupt power to men wearing red stars instead will change things?

Tell me, when people were eating their frozen children in Leningrad in WW2, was Stalin starving to death too?

Ponder this.

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Do you actually believe this propaganda. Stalin was personally responsible for the eradication of reactionary elements within the army and the communist party. The huge loss of life in the Soviet Union prior to the invasion by Nazi Germany and the subsequent even huger loss of life that resulted in, was not done as a willfull act, but was mainly due to poor and erratic planning

So was the mass liquidation of Poles and North Europeans, and then the invasion of Karellia a case of bad planning?

Insane.

Next you'll be telling us the holocaust was a hoax.

Originally posted by Tripledoc
I am not taking it for granted. See above. The good living standards are evaporating.

Common sense with it, seemingly.

Originally posted by Tripledoc
I have shoveled chickenshit at a chicken farm in Canada.

Beware of producing it by verbal means.

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Hitler was not a socialist.

Actually he was.

A nationalist socialist.

Have basic historical facts escaped you?

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by skywalker
This is 'Poly.

I am beginning to realise the infamously silly reputation of the red-squad here is well-deserved!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by curtsibling
But communism will never be adopted in any major Western nation, so the argument is moot.

Is this a reason to remain in your misconceptions, that we commies all want the return of Stalin? That we commies are all young brats looking for something "cool" rather than "rad", that we have no political awareness?

Azazel and I, both commies, have posted the most articulate posts in this thread, closely followed by diehard capitalist skywalker. Maybe, just maybe, that's because we do have put some thought in our political opinions?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by curtsibling
But communism will never be adopted in any major Western nation, so the argument is moot.

This a most basic misconception. You, like Spiffor and Azazel, are under the impression that the path to communism is a politically determined process. It is not.

It is the result overproduction, overcapitializing of industry, and the lack of foreign markets to dump off the goods produced. The latter sparks what is commonly know as Imperialism.

Communism sets in when the imperialists are incapbale of pushing their way into new markets. It is an outcome of historical economic forces.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by curtsibling
I am beginning to realise the infamously silly reputation of the red-squad here is well-deserved!

Skywalker definitely doesn't belong to the red squad of 'Poly. If you read his posts, you'd notice he is a diehard partisan of capitalism (or rather, of ideal capitalism he called "schmooism" in this thread to avoid the confusion with existing capitalism).

But of course, to know that, you'd need to read the thread rather than spout nonsense.

[curtsibling]

"Do you actually believe this propaganda. Stalin was personally responsible for the eradication of reactionary elements within the army and the communist party. The huge loss of life in the Soviet Union prior to the invasion by Nazi Germany and the subsequent even huger loss of life that resulted in, was not done as a willfull act, but was mainly due to poor and erratic planning"

@Spiffor:

So is there any kind of lucidity behind this quote by one of your comrades?

I am not saying you are unaware, just unrealistic.

[Spiffor]

BTW, Skywalker, shouldn't you be "Emperor of Schmooism" rather than "Emperor of your Mom". That would make many people intrigues I'd bet

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Spiffor
But of course, to know that, you'd need to read the thread rather than spout nonsense.

I can see that you are becoming abusive, because your political fantasies are not finding welcome.

Well and good.

May I say your ideas are out to lunch.

You can try and sell me communism all you wish.
But the brutish nature of the system only leads to vast piles of dead.

Something you all are unwilling to confront, save to witter some rubbish about bad planning.

I like my way of life, I want for little, and refuse to give all that up for the nightmare you masochists seem to hanker for.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by curtsibling
@Spiffor:

So is there any kind of lucidity behind this quote by one of your comrades?

I am not saying you are unaware, just unrealistic.

I mostly disagree with Tripledoc. I am more often in agreement with Imran (a serious capitalist) than with Tripledoc.

That we both are advocating communism doesn't mean we have the same view of how the system should be (we agree on the basic premise that property of production means should belong to the people rather than to a select few capitalists). And it certainly doesn't mean that we agree on history. I am of Romanian ascent, and I know enough of the crimes of stalinist regimes to never defend their cruelty. It is the reason why I think, in my model posted on fricking post #29, that a communist system needs absolutely to be democratic. Otherwise, it'd better not exist (but then again, everything is at post #29, if you only bother to go back to page 1, there are many questions you won't find useful to ask me)

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Something you all are unwilling to confront, save to witter some rubbish about bad planning.

You ALL ?!?!
Do you associate me with Tripledoc's delusions? You have no idea of what my opinion on Stalin was, and you are assuming that I agree with Tripledoc on it?

Let's play the same game. Ned is an anticommunist. I'll go for the premise that you and Ned are basically the same, and I'll blame you for any crap Ned will say

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by curtsibling
I like my way of life, I want for little, and refuse to give all that up for the nightmare you masochists seem to hanker for.

I guess this is a reason enough not to bother even reading what we say, then. Of course, since our (Azazel's and mine's) posts would go completely at the opposite of your prejudices, I guess it's better for you to stay clear of them, ain't it?