Rage against the Machine - Communism Vs. Capitalism (again!)

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

LOL....

Sik,

Its way too scary that we think the same.

Og

[Velociryx]

I think this is the part where they come back with something about some *completely* marginalized tribe living in a rainforest whose societal structure is communal in nature. Never mind the fact that their current status (as a totally marginalized group) has everything to do with the way their society is set up....

-=Vel=-
(not that I've ever participated in these debates before or anything.... )

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
LOL....

Sik,

Its way too scary that we think the same.

Og

I'm sure there are some subtle differences, but for me it's a compliment anyway.

Capitalism is not much more than observation over millenia of human economic behavior, and a very few tenets to assure what its authors considered to be the most efficient model would be preferred.

Communism is nothing more than theory that has failed spectacularly in its many guises, rebirths and rethinkings. It isn't nearly as scientific as capitalism because it was formed as grandiose theory on the spot during a very discreet and fairly unique era of human existence. It lives on today on life support, its only refuges a few dictatorships that cannot survive beyond their own
identification with this failed series of systems, and of course academia, much of which exists apparantly to keep destructive ideas like communism, sexism and racism alive, with varying levels of success.

[Berzerker]

Templar -

If NASA was a waste, unplug your damn TV - satellites are involved. Throw out everything with a microprocessor or semiconductor - the needs of minaturization for space travel are primarily responsible for those developments.

Do me a favor, read my posts and make an effort to respond to what I said before making a point I just addressed. If government throws around billions of dollars, it's bound to come up with something. That doesn't mean the expenditure wasn't a waste.

The internet? Knock it off with the Al Gore thing. First, he was misquoted, so your playing the fool by repeating it.

it was a government invention.

Government rarely "invents" things, at most, it doles out our money to other people to do research. Did government invent telephone lines and computers? And yet the internet is basicly just a way of connecting these inventions.

Capitalists are followers, not leaders.

That way they can watch those innovative commies fall off the cliff.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I have a tremendous difficulty believing inthe concept of social evolution.

It has nothing to do with social evolution. Just stop rewarding people for killing for resources. That's all.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Sikander
Peaceful people will be at a competitive disadvantage against reasonably violent people.

Peacefull people are now at a disadvantage. Just change system to a system where peacefull people are not at a disadvantage.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I think this is the part where they come back with something about some *completely* marginalized tribe living in a rainforest whose societal structure is communal in nature. Never mind the fact that their current status (as a totally marginalized group) has everything to do with the way their society is set up....

-=Vel=-
(not that I've ever participated in these debates before or anything.... )

Why should we provide examples for things that are just so obvious? All we have to do is assume that people are rational, and expect you to do the same thing. Why would people fight for resources when they aren't allowed to keep them, and they will be thrown in jail for doing so? It's not enough to win the debate. We have to change your way of thinking. If you would just make the right assumptions you would see the light.

edit: Let's use the US as an example. Here you have to compete for resources to get them. Otherwise you face a life of poverty. Consider the poor people who don't have sympathy for other human beings. Unfortunately there are a lot of them. We can see that from the crime rate. To them there is no reason not to commit crime, any crime. They will murder and not care less, because they don't care if they go to prison. Prison is not as bad as poverty. Out of prison you have to compete for resources and you still end up in poverty. In prison you don't have to work and you have all of your needs met.

Take poverty out of the equation. In fact, provide every law obeying citizen with an decent living, and make prison a REAL penalty and you will see very little crime.

[Velociryx]

What a gold mine of quotes to respond to this morning!

It has nothing to do with social evolution. Just stop rewarding people for killing for resources. That's all.

That's right! Kill them for resisting when the GOVERNMENT competes for resources by taking theirs! Obviously a vastly superior solution!

Peacefull people are now at a disadvantage. Just change system to a system where peacefull people are not at a disadvantage.

I'll agree again! Let's change the system so that the peaceful people all live under the thumb of their dictatorial masters (who rose to power violently, and can therefore be safely assumed to be anything BUT peaceful)....and if the peaceful people dare breathe a word in resistance....well, we've already seen what they get, haven't we?

we have to do is assume that people are rational, and expect you to do the same thing

Did you sleep through all your econ classes? One of the first things mentioned in any basic study of economics is that people are (most of the time) rational. We're making the same assumptions, it's just that we disagree that it's "rational" to let the Borg Collective come in and tell us how to live and think. But you're right on one count, it should be fairly obvious.

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Well it doesn't matter if you hard core types will ever understand. Vel, you will be still making the same poor arguments when the official unemployment rate is 30%.

[JohnT]

You people couldn't even organize a book club. What makes you so certain you can re-organize a whole global society?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
* Velociryx wonders if GePap has ever heard the term "corporate culture." Probably not, given the singular definition of culture he seems to want to apply.

Corporatye culture applies to the needs of an organization to have a set of internal values to function, since for it to functon all its members need to share this common set of goals (from my organization's class)

And IN a capitalist culture (used the word again, cos I know you luv me!), there is more incentive to innovate. Whether that innovation stems from state-funded ventures is immaterial, it is still driven by the same capitalist culture (as are all derivative products from it).

There is lots of incentive to create, yes there is. As far as innovate (a subset of creation), it varies. Any innovation not well recieved by the market will fail to catch on, and future innovations could very well oerturn the whole capitalist system, as new innovations have upended systems before.

Yes GePap, I'll grant you, on paper, communism CAN reward innovation. The reason I keep going back to the USSR is because I don't give a rat's a$$ about the theory, as I have stated numerous times. We don't live in theory, we live here....you know....earth? Big blue planet as seen from space? And here on earth, as communism has been implemented EACH AND EVERY TIME it has been trotted out, it brings with it authoritarian, dictatorial powers in charge of a highly centralized government built around control of the command economy.

That's the way it has been IN FACT. Not in theory, but in practice.

And what is the "truth" of Earth? There is none. You assume there to be some "reality" seeprate from ideas and theories that man could live in, and he fact is that man "as aminal" can, but not man as a sentient being. We think things up, we create, and hence we live in a world of our own making, a world of ideas, hence, change the ideas, change the world.

Maybe you should look at Communist theory after Marx. I personally blame Lenin. It was Lenion who upeneded what was then orthodox communis by saying that, instead of waiting for capitalism to , by its own processes, build the tools of its own downfall and a popular and general revoluto by the working classes (communism from bellow), that a political vanguard could, by overtaking the political system, speed up the whole porcess by making the gvernment pro-revolution. Lenin inserted a "political" fix to what was seen as an "economic" subject. Every communist revolution that has taken place took place in places not yet sometimes even yet at the capitalis stage, far less at the bink of the communist revolution of the workers.

Hence change the theory (from one in which one waits for the ystem to build the tools of the revolution on its own, just wait for it to one in which you pre-empt this and try to nurse the revoltuion along politically), change the world.

And IN that environment, there is no room, will, or desire for innovation, because those same innovative minds can also be subversive thinkers....they could lead a counterrevolution which could threaten the power of the state, and we can't have that.

No big mystery, but you keep on imagining that there is, 'k? Cos I DO so enjoy taking breaks from packing to come back and see the latest!

-=Vel=-

And as I have stated a dozen times, what you point to is a political failure whose roots I outline above. What you point to is a POLITICAL process and a failing (as relevant for 15th century China) of authoritarian politics, not the notion of collectivized economies, and since the arguemnt of this thread (wehih you keep extending) is on economic systems, you would do better than to just harp on one POLITICAL issue (no matter how much I may like them).

[Kidicious]

What happened to that? I think some people wanted to read old books and some people wanted to read new books. I book was elected. I think it was Engles. I read 2/3rds of it, but I never saw the thread for the discussion.

[JohnT]

What happened to it? IIRC, it was supposed to be a communal effort. That's what happened to it.

[Kidicious]

I believe that MtG has been converted. I haven't seen anything from him.

[JohnT]

No, he's busy exploitating the masses. As am I, which is why I haven't participated either.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
What happened to it? IIRC, it was supposed to be a communal effort. That's what happened to it.

Oh yes, you believe that people can't work together at all.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
No, he's busy exploitating the masses. As am I, which is why I haven't participated either.

On a Sunday. I'm shocked.

[JohnT]

Naw, the only thing that proves is that you people can't work together. My Science fiction book discussion group is doing quite fine, thank you, and there's a very good reason for that.

[Kidicious]

I think that it shows that we should have picked a different book, something more up to date, for the first book.

[Velociryx]

Kid: I don't think so. If unemployment was chronically that high, we'd have a major problem, and the system would require an immediate and dramatic change. And if that were the case, I certainly wouldn’t be actively supporting the system, because it would be clearly evident that the system is (fatally) flawed.

But that’s not the case. Unemployment is relatively low, opportunities abound, and by any economic measure you’d care to look at, the system I am arguing for has improved the lives of the greatest number of people in the shortest amount of time.

And what can be said of communist experiments to date?
1) Authoritarian, Dictatorial, Brutal governments
2) Mass killings during “purges” as people were collectivized and property confiscated
3) Little innovation, difficulty keeping up with western (capitalist) societies
4) Failure to accomplish the stated mission of plenty for everyone

So…in light of the fact that the current system is working (albeit imperfectly), and the proposed system has NEVER worked….ummm, no. I’m not particularly inclined to agree.

GePap:
And what is the "truth" of Earth? There is none.

If it pleases you to believe that the earth holds no truth, that’s your bag. It IS true that communist experiments have failed in the past. Every time they have been tried. THAT is one truth. There are plenty of others. If you do not wish to recognize them when they hit you in the face, again….that’s your deal, but just because you close your eyes and say that the moon does not exist does not make it so.

The *reason* that the political problems inherent cannot be separated from the economic problems in the communist system are because the communists themselves, by virtue of the way communism has been implemented in the real world thus far, have merged the two. The state is the economy. The state was built around control over the centralized economy.

Maybe you should look at Communist theory after Marx.

And maybe you should look at communism in practice. Theory is great for writing papers. Practice is where we live.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
If it pleases you to believe that the earth holds no truth, that’s your bag. It IS true that communist experiments have failed in the past. Every time they have been tried. THAT is one truth. There are plenty of others. If you do not wish to recognize them when they hit you in the face, again….that’s your deal, but just because you close your eyes and say that the moon does not exist does not make it so.

This is such a trite and inconsequential asnwer, that is all it will get.

The *reason* that the political problems inherent cannot be separated from the economic problems in the communist system are because the communists themselves, by virtue of the way communism has been implemented in the real world thus far, have merged the two. The state is the economy. The state was built around control over the centralized economy.

Which leave communist to learn from past mistakes and separate the two and create new theories, does it not? We can leave behind Lenin's contribution and try to go back to the source and innovate from there. Oh, and you are wrong on the last part: the centralized economy was built around the state, not the other way around. The party is a politcal vanguard, meaning that politics lead, not economics. That is why party functionaries did much better (look ma, no equality of ends!) then economists in the system.

And maybe you should look at communism in practice. Theory is great for writing papers. Practice is where we live

You know this makes no sense. If we live in practice, we never actually perform...

You speak about innovation all the time Vel, well, what is innovation? A new way of thinking that then leads to a new thing or mode of action. The IDEA comes first, and out of the IDEA comes the thing. If man did live in "practice", there would be no innovation, only improvisation.

[Velociryx]

Semantics is such a fun game to play, is it not, GePap?

You said, "there are no truths." Your words, not mine. If you really believe it, then yes, a trite answer is about all that's worth.

Practice IS performance. I know, you'd rather play the semantics game....if I have time later, I might join you for a while, but for the moment, since I'm at work and must keep the window minimized for the most part, I'll steer clear from the colorful semantics debate.

I'm all for the commies coming up with new theories...that'd be great! So far though, what we've seen is not markedly different from the last effort of the big red pony. No thanks.

This debate is actually a good case study for why it won't work.

Neither side in the debate are huddling together planning what to say next. It's just a bunch of individuals (that word...my how it keeps popping up!) debating for one side or the other.

But do you know what's interesting?

All the folks arguing for the capitalist side are all on the same page.

We're not secretly meeting in the chat room to get our story straight, we're just arguing from the reality of the present situation.

Contrast that with the communist side and we get:

Kid arguing for equality of outcomes

GePap scolding us for thinking that communism is about equality of outcomes

Templar arguing for a ballot box revolution

Che arguing along classic Marxist lines

Gepap not really debating, but doing what he and I always do when we disagree in a thread

If you guys can't even get your act together sufficiently to present a coherent argument where it at least APPEARS that everybody is on the same page....what's that say about the theory you are arguing in favor OF?



-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

I'll even answer my own question: First and foremost, it says quite clearly that the theory is most assuredly NOT "ready for prime time."



-=Vel=-

(and by that I mean that it is not yet ready to be put into "practice" )

[DAVOUT]

This is an attempt of mediation between Vel and Gepap.

Gepap said :

You speak about innovation all the time Vel, well, what is innovation? A new way of thinking that then leads to a new thing or mode of action. The IDEA comes first, and out of the IDEA comes the thing. If man did live in "practice", there would be no innovation, only improvisation.

Mediation :
The practical idea comes first, and out of the practical idea comes the improved thing.

[GePap]

That fact, that there is no single argument, points to a diversity of thought, innovation and different ideas. Now, if you want to claim you have the same aguments as JohnT and Imran, well, were did capitalist innovation go, if all you guys are simply spouting orthodoxy?

Practice IS performance. I know, you'd rather play the semantics game....if I have time later, I might join you for a while, but for the moment, since I'm at work and must keep the window minimized for the most part, I'll steer clear from the colorful semantics debate.

If practice were performance, therwe would be only one word, not two.

This debate is actually a good case study for why it won't work.

Actualy, it isn't. As of yet, you really have only responded to Kid's aguemnts, why not really tackling Templars, or Che's, or mine. Can you porve Templar's arguemnt, and his alone, would not work? Until you do so, you can hardly claim anything close to "victory"

[GePap]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Mediation :
The practical idea comes first, and out of the practical idea comes the improved thing.

Nice attempt, but honestly I think meditation is not possible without fundamentaly changing the terms being used.

[Velociryx]

Dave!

Good attempt at mediation, but no worries! I can’t speak for GePap of course, but there’s no ill will here….this is just….what we do when we disagree (we’re absolute dynamite when we’re on the same side of an issue, but when we butt heads, he brings out the biting sarcasm in me, that’s for sure! )

I think the essence of our differences can be boiled down to this: GePap is a “the world is a deep, vast mystery” kinda guy, and I’m a “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it’s prolly a duck” kinda guy. He thinks I oversimplify, and I think he makes every little thing needlessly complex. Just a difference in methodology, mostly….

And to GePap!:

There’s all sorts of diversity of thought, but in a generalized debate of communism vs. capitalism, we’ve been able to ignore the differences in micro-level methodology and all get on the same basic page, whereas you guys don’t even know what you want to do IF/WHEN the revolution comes! (or even what form it should take—guns blazing, per Kid, ballot box, per Templar).

And the REASON I have not debated much directly with Templar, you, or Che, is because you guys keep harping about what it looks like on paper.

So what? It doesn’t matter what it looks like on paper. Build it and see what it looks like when you’re done! THAT is what matters! Until then, it’s just flowery talk.

Can you porve Templar's arguemnt, and his alone, would not work? Until you do so, you can hardly claim anything close to "victory"

I don’t have to. I’m arguing from the side that’s working *in practice* (that phrase again…dontcha love it!) right now. He’s already admitted that his is pure theory. It’s up to your side to prove it. We’re not going to do your debating for you.

If practice were performance, therwe would be only one word, not two.

Be right back, I have to go make an appointment down at the Medical Performance….erm…Practice….no wait! The doc recently lost his license when he couldn’t afford to carry his malperformance insurance….

GePap….really. I’m disappointed….

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Vel:
To perform and to practice are similar, bu they are not the same, Hence the two different words. Words are not created out of nowhere. A drizzle and a shower are similar, but not the same.

I don’t have to. I’m arguing from the side that’s working *in practice* (that phrase again…dontcha love it!) right now. He’s already admitted that his is pure theory. It’s up to your side to prove it. We’re not going to do your debating for you.

Notice then how you are not actually talking about what I or Templer (I assume) are actually talking about, since you here admit you make no rpetense to argue against the theory, only to point out which system is working right now (though a higly modified version full of socialistic systems in it as well). Since I do not care to argue about "which is working", since that ins;t really a debate, I guess I will wait for the theoretical defenders of capitalism to show up.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid: I don't think so. If unemployment was chronically that high, we'd have a major problem, and the system would require an immediate and dramatic change. And if that were the case, I certainly wouldn’t be actively supporting the system, because it would be clearly evident that the system is (fatally) flawed.

One thing I want to know. In 1932 who would you have voted for? Your acceptance of inequality, poverty and crime seems to tell me that you would be a Hooverite

[Velociryx]

GePap: Even as stubborn as you are, you must concede that saying:

"as communism is working now in practice"

is the correct use of the word and phrase, not

"as communism is working now in performance"

And that's as far as I'll go down the semantics road with you, 'k?

drizzle...shower....RAIN!

And I've said from the start, debating the paper theory is meaningless. Let's see it in action, and then we'll have something to talk about.

That would be like debating the baseball game before it is played. Just....not all that much to talk about, is there?

-=Vel=-