Rage against the Machine - Communism Vs. Capitalism (again!) - Page 16

Ogie Oglethorpe · June 23, 2003, 22:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

Well you must think that feudalism, primative society, capitalism, and communism are all about the same.

All are imperfect if thats what you mean.

All are in some form or another taken advantage of by man.

Sikander · June 23, 2003, 22:01

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

And what does modern man have to do with the "nature of man" anyway?

Same hardware and OS, some different software.

Ogie Oglethorpe · June 23, 2003, 22:06

Sik.

Kidicious · June 23, 2003, 22:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander

Maybe we can force people to be peaceful!

Seriously, how can you eliminate violence? It's a natural condition, something that is "invented" anew every generation regardless of the values of the society these children are born into.

Let's suppose that a society was determined to elimnate violence. To this end they endlessly repeat that violence is bad to their children, and intervene at school whenever a violent incident occurs by sending the evildoers to counciling. Would this work? Or would abused and neglected children still have a tendency to become more violent than others, their parents perhaps not around to scold them for hitting their brother, or perhaps serving as violent role models. These kids get to school and smack someone, for which they get a lot of attention, negative from their classmates and teachers perhaps, and positive from the counselors. There is a lot of self-perpetuation material here, and we've seen this cycle for a very long time. Tough guy is identified as violent by his peers and teachers / police etc., and accepts the role because it feels right (he feels himself to be bad). He is sent to counseling, but that slow work to become like everyone else 10 years behind schedule can't effectively compete with the excitement of being the bad boy, especially once the bad girls get ahold of him.

You seem to think that we can simply disincentivize violence away, but that idea has had a long history of incomplete success at best to abject failure at worst. It is completely incapable of dealing with various manias and mob violence, social pathologies and psychiatric conditions. We may be able to manage violence, but we are in no position to eliminate it in the least. Just this week I heard people chanting "No Justice, No Peace!"

I clarified that for Og already. I don't claim to be able to eliminate psychopathical violence only violence resulting from the competition for resources.

Ogie Oglethorpe · June 23, 2003, 22:20

Kid,

The hell with the resources thats only the pretext. Its all about greed (wanting to have wealth), an ego trip, revenge and other more baser motives. In the end it comes down to being human.

Og

Whoops I spoke to soon. Our cousins the chimps are also known to go to war for the same reasons. Mayhaps they have capitalism and we don't know it.

Kidicious · June 23, 2003, 22:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander
Actually the popularity of communism at the end of the Imperial era had a lot to do with the rapid economic decline experienced in so many new states whose leaders had been educated in commie dogma in western universities. Unregulated markets also played their part, as did interference from outsiders and domestic instability. This is a failure so vast it has a hundred fathers.

Capitalism is a bigger failure than any other system in history in every single African nation.

Ogie Oglethorpe · June 23, 2003, 22:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

Capitalism is a bigger failure than any other system in history in every single African nation.

That explains it the Chimps are in Africa. Thanks for clarifying.

Kidicious · June 23, 2003, 22:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Kid,

The hell with the resources thats only the pretext. Its all about greed (wanting to have wealth), an ego trip, revenge and other more baser motives. In the end it comes down to being human.

Some people yes, but it must be cost effective. If everyone is granted a fair share of the resources almost no one will want to lose their share. The vast majority of violence occurs because poor people have very little to lose. Even when wealthy people use violence it is because they have made a rational decision. They see very little risk for their behavior compared to the chance of recieving a benefit. Communism makes violence a very irrational act and therefore violence will not occur in a communist society except for those people behaving irrational.

Tuberski · June 23, 2003, 22:36

what's a fair share?

ACK!

Ogie Oglethorpe · June 23, 2003, 22:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

Some people yes, but it must be cost effective. If everyone is granted a fair share of the resources almost no one will want to lose their share. The vast majority of violence occurs because poor people have very little to lose. Even when wealthy people use violence it is because they have made a rational decision. They see very little risk for their behavior compared to the chance of recieving a benefit. Communism makes violence a very irrational act and therefore violence will not occur in a communist society except for those people behaving irrational.

You neglect the innate need for people to feel good about themselves by being better than others.

ravagon · June 23, 2003, 22:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
Communism makes violence a very irrational act and therefore violence will not occur in a communist society except for those people behaving irrational.

So when the Communist Government started shooting striking Polish workers you agree that it was the Government behaving irrationally then?
If so

Ditto for Beiging square when students were fired upon.

Kidicious · June 23, 2003, 22:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuberski
what's a fair share?

ACK!

ARGH! I'm not through with those calculations yet.

Kidicious · June 23, 2003, 22:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
You neglect the innate need for people to feel good about themselves by being better than others.

Now that is not the nature of man. That is social conditioning that comes with capitalism.

Ogie Oglethorpe · June 23, 2003, 22:44

And thats where we disagree completely because that is one aspect of the nature of man IMO.

Tuberski · June 23, 2003, 22:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

ARGH! I'm not through with those calculations yet.

And you never will be.

ACK!

Kidicious · June 23, 2003, 22:46

Quote:

Originally posted by ravagon

So when the Communist Government started shooting striking Polish workers you agree that it was the Government behaving irrationally then?
If so

Ditto for Beiging square when students were fired upon.

Violence against citizens is not exclusive to communist govts. I would have to say that those cases are extreme and probably not the best move although I'm sure the govts thought them to be rational moves.

Kidicious · June 23, 2003, 22:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
And thats where we disagree completely because that is one aspect of the nature of man IMO.

We can disagree, but it doesn't really matter. The govt will enforce the rules and the citizens will follow.

Ogie Oglethorpe · June 23, 2003, 22:53

I don't understand what point your trying to make.

Of course govt set the rules. Doesn't mean that citizen don't break them, espcially when contrary to their nature. Or are you simply advocating anothe communist police state. I thought we were over that and talking about a true golden age of communism.

Kidicious · June 23, 2003, 22:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I don't understand what point your trying to make.

Of course govt set the rules. Doesn't mean that citizen don't break them, espcially when contrary to their nature. Or are you simply advocating anothe communist police state. I thought we were over that and talking about a true golden age of communism.

I wouldn't say police state, but more police and more enforcement than the current state.

Ogie Oglethorpe · June 23, 2003, 22:58

Your treading a slippery path, Kid.

ravagon · June 23, 2003, 23:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

Violence against citizens is not exclusive to communist govts.

Very true, but if you're referring to "Western" Governments in particular, they tend to use tear/CS gas and rubber bullets - maybe inflicting a fatality or two in the most extreme cases. Those communist crackdowns were completely off the scale. Dozens/hundreds killed IIRC.

Quote:

I would have to say that those cases are extreme and probably not the best move although I'm sure the govts thought them to be rational moves.

I'm not so sure that Communist Governments implementing such moves as 'rational' supports your theories quite frankly...

Kidicious · June 23, 2003, 23:02

Quote:

Originally posted by ravagon
Very true, but if you're referring to "Western" Governments in particular, they tend to use tear/CS gas and rubber bullets - maybe inflicting a fatality or two in the most extreme cases. Those communist crackdowns were completely off the scale. Dozens/hundreds killed IIRC.
I'm not so sure that Communist Governments implementing such moves as 'rational' supports your theories quite frankly...

When a Western nation becomes communist we will see a difference.

Kidicious · June 23, 2003, 23:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Your treading a slippery path, Kid.

It is a slippery path, but my assumption is that capitalism will face a major crisis in the not so distant future that it will not be able to survive.

Ogie Oglethorpe · June 23, 2003, 23:08

Maybe who knows. One thing I'm pretty confident of though is that even if communism becomes it successor, it will fail as well.

Kidicious · June 23, 2003, 23:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Maybe who knows. One thing I'm pretty confident of though is that even if communism becomes it successor, it will fail as well.

I'm not sure why you think that. Is it economical, political or what?

Sikander · June 23, 2003, 23:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

I clarified that for Og already. I don't claim to be able to eliminate psychopathical violence only violence resulting from the competition for resources.

This takes many forms, from kids fighting over toys to boys fighting each other for the attentions of a young woman, to siblings fighting for their parents attention to lawyers suing whoever they can to get a piece of the action, no matter how unrelated it may be to their case. Warfare over natural resources is small and tame in comparison.

Velociryx · June 23, 2003, 23:12

More police than what? Than we have now in the US, or than some of your favorite run of the mill commie dictatorships have?

Should the national mantra be "one good turn-in deserves another?" Pit the citizens against each other, maybe? Have them so enthralled with the prospect of picking up a few more crumbs from the party bigwigs that it becomes a national passtime?

Again, I ask: What's wrong with just letting people be who they are? What are you so afraid of? Is reciept of whatever the party bosses determine to be your "fair share" of the nation's wealth worth your freedom of choice? Of speech? Of movement?

Are you truly so obsessed with equal economic outcomes (I think everybody would be happy with around 30k) that you're willing to sacrifice EVERYTHING else? Or, will you wake up one day and realize that you've sold your soul for a paltry 30k a year (or whatever your final figures turn out to be)?

What manner of victory is it to ensure some basic level of guaranteed wage if you must live each day wondering if a neighbor might say something to the local honcho and make your whole family disappear?

That's what you are advocating, because NOTHING in your plan as presented thus far varies markedly from uncle Joe Stalin's plan, save for the fact that you're calling for even more police (if I read your earlier post correctly).

You say that after all the enemies of the glorious revolution are crushed (ie - killed), there will be no need for war, but you base that assumption entirely on the fact that it's all (exclusively, entirely) about resources.

It's not, and you would be foolish to believe it.

Further, after all the external enemies of the state are eliminated, will you stand down the military? The police? Stop the random house-to-house checks to make sure that no one is amassing wealth that could be used one day, to exploit another?

Or will the state keep inventing new enemies (from within) to maintain its power over the sheep they rule over?

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · June 23, 2003, 23:12

When capitalism does collapse I think it will be quite obvious that communism is the only way forward.

Velociryx · June 23, 2003, 23:14

When a Western nation becomes communist we will see a difference.

This is the heart and soul of the whole debate. Right here.

"Well, we don't really know if it'll work....we don't have any real plans to counter the disasters we've seen in history, but trust us....it'll be marvellous."

That's the plan, right? Just trust you and it'll all work out.

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · June 23, 2003, 23:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander
This takes many forms, from kids fighting over toys to boys fighting each other for the attentions of a young woman, to siblings fighting for their parents attention to lawyers suing whoever they can to get a piece of the action, no matter how unrelated it may be to their case. Warfare over natural resources is small and tame in comparison.

I'm not saying that two communist states will not fight a war over resources, even though I think it would probably be unlikely. I'm talking about the end of the nation-state.