Night of the Living ComCap Debate....

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The communist system was deformed by Lenin first.

[Velociryx]

Cos it's no good for the other side's argument....

The problem is that communism made its own enemies and bit off more than it could chew. When you start ranting about the glorious revolution bringing death to the capitalist pigdogs (and then aptly demonstrate that by purging your own population) is it a tremendous surprise that the "captialist pigdogs" from neighboring nations will start to notice? (and immeadiately thereafter, start to actively oppose you? I mean, they're next, according to the guy doing the purgings, so hell yeah we're gonna oppose!)

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

An aside: It has been a good deal of fun watching the debates unfold, and since we’ve been butting heads for more than 1500 posts now, I’ve noticed some trends.

If I’ve left anybody off, just remind me here…I can be a scatterbrain like that….

Debate Styles

Name/Style

Kid - Brawler No doubt about it in my mind, Kid is a Brawler type debater. He’s not bashful about getting right into the thick of it and mixing it up, and Brawlers tend to be very confident of their abilities and of whatever they’re debating about. This makes them tenacious in the extreme, which is a good thing in a fight! Special attack: Ferocity The Brawler comes at you constantly, throwing a variety of punches, making it difficult to defend against them all. Weaknesses: Such in-your-face ferocity can lead to posting things without fully thinking them through, and thus, created unexpected exposure.

Che - Gentleman You gotta love debating with Che. He is, IMO, in a class by himself (I’ve never run across another Gentleman Debater). Thoughtful and patient when explaining new concepts to those who have never heard them, honest (even when the facts move against him), and passionate about what he believes in—and quick to take scolding shots at people on his side for not doing likewise. Special attack: None. And no notable weaknesses, either. An extremely well-rounded debate style.

GePap - The Obfuscating Curmudgeon It is nigh on impossible to tell exactly what the main point a debater using this style is trying to make, and that is the point! This is an absolutely dazzling debate style to watch in action, as there’s simply no telling what form or direction the debate might take when a master of this style joins the fray. They are unexpected and unconventional, which makes them very dangerous. Special Attacks: Confusion – If the other side cannot figure out what your point is, or how it relates, then they’ll say something stupid and doom themselves. Weaknesses: special* - the main weakness to this style is in that the debate may terminate prematurely if the opposition becomes so confused that it’s no longer clear what the debate is about. In this case, the OC can count a technical victory, which is nearly as good as a clear cut one, making this “weakness” very nearly a strength!

Og, Sikander, and Templar – Marksmen These are the guys to watch for. They’ll be real quiet for the first portion of the debate, letting the opposition state their case, letting them expose themselves and their arguments, then they’ll pick their targets (Marksmen generally focus only on one area of the debate at a time), aim well, and fire one deadly, devastating shot. They can reload quickly too, so once that portion of the debate is punctured, they’ll shoot again in the same spot, expanding the damage and quickly sinking the whole ship. Special attack: Accuracy – Marksmen always hit what they aim at. Always. Weakness: Marksmen have extremely good focus, but can at times be blindsided by an attack from a new and unexpected direction, which causes them to retreat and take aim at the new threat.

MtG – Bulldozer A deadly debate style. Unlike the Marksman, who zeroes in on an exquisitely exposed, vulnerable part of the debate, the Bulldozer simply drives over the whole thing, flattening everything at once. MtG is, like Che, unique in that I have never seen another person able to consistently pull off the bulldozer technique. Special attack: Overrun Can take your entire argument and deflate it in the blink of an eye. Weaknesses: Unknown.

Vel – Ambusher Ambushers HATE to get caught out in the open, and will usually lead their opponents on a merry chase, refusing to be locked down, letting the opposition get strung out and stretched thin, and then, at the point when exposure is greatest, that’s when and where the ambusher will strike. Special attack The Ambush – If you have a weak spot in your debate, that’s where the ambusher will hit you hard, every time, and usually when you really don’t want it to happen. Weakness: Ambushers are loathe to fight pitched battles and will usually make a strategic withdrawal if forced to do so.

Alva, Flare & Daveout – Diplomats These are the peacekeepers. They enjoy the debate for itself, and do whatever they can to ensure that the participants don’t take each other too seriously. For them, it is both an entertainment and a social interaction encounter, and they’ll argue the merits of either (or both) sides, depending on the circumstances at hand. Special attack: Battlefield Medicine – If the debate is getting nasty and personal, count on the Diplomats to sort it out and get things running smoothly again. Weaknesses: None – The Diplomats are universally welcomed.

More later…was just tryin’ to look busy at work…*G*

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I prefer a good one liner. If not a bad one liner will do.

[Meldor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You forget the stranglehold Stalin had on the Communist Parties of the world. Once he deformed the Communist International, how would it be possible for a party made in Stalin's image to produce anything but a country in Stalin's image?

You also forget the extreme hostility of the West towards these countries, while giving money hand over fist to the dictatorships of those friendly to the West.

So while one set o countries gets bombs, terrorists, and blockades, the other gets financial and military aid and prefertial trade agreements. Gee, I wonder which country will do better?

You also forget it took the captialist countries hundreds of years to get to the high level of development they have today (with the exception of the East Asians). England and the US were both hells for working class people, really up until after WWII. So what took the English 200 years and the US 100 years should take the USSR less? When they started from a much higher level of culture to begin with?

Meldor, take the human nature BS to the human nature thread. There's no point in replicating arguments here.

At the point that the Russian revolution took ploace both the Eastern Europeans and Western Europeans were in the sam condition. Since the revolution took place which advanced? Which have struggled just to maintain a thin veneer of production? The system in the Soviet Union stifled advancement. While the west carried forward they stagnated. The only boost they got was during and right after WWII when they got that boost from us. After that they went right back to stagnating with a little progress on mostly stolen technology. At the time of the Soviet collapse, there farm systems were in about the same or worse state than right after the war. They were buying grain from us, their "mortal enemy".

To say that the West opposed them is a given. But why did we oppose them? And were did we oppose them. The oppsed them in trying to do the same thing they did to the rest of eastern Europe, that is it enslave the rest of the world into a vastly inferior system. At the apex of the Soviet power, they were thought to be our equals. If their system was better why didn't they win and not us? Because their system took the drive for inovation out of the people. It went against their nature and forced them to work for no more than anyone else. You may think the "human nature" part os BS, but the fact is that productivity was horrible in the USSR and it got better and better here, until there was no longer any means for the USSR to oppose us. They burnt the system from the inside out. And it will happen in any system were compensation for work isn't allowed to follow peoples perception of what it should be.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Meldor
At the point that the Russian revolution took ploace both the Eastern Europeans and Western Europeans were in the sam condition.

I'm stunned. Can you actually believe that a country that used wooden triangles to suvey land and used wooden oil derriks was somehow possibly in the same leage as Western Europe? The Balkans sure weren't. Poland wasn't. Slovakia wasn't. Bohemia wasn't. Hngary wasn't. These countries were al backwards by German, French, and British standards, let alone the US. Russia was barely out of the Medieval period, ahtuogh it has some pockets of highly advanced industry . . . imported from France.

To say that the West opposed them is a given. But why did we oppose them? And were did we oppose them. The oppsed them in trying to do the same thing they did to the rest of eastern Europe, that is it enslave the rest of the world into a vastly inferior system

In 1871, no one knew it was a "vastly inferior system." Nor did they know it in 1918, when the Western powers all decided to invade and support the Tsarist armies. Russia was invaded while there were still multiple parties in the Soviets, not just the socialist parties, and let alone only the Bolsheviks.

In fact, given the USSRs industrial growth during the 1930s, the fact that it some of the most advanced weaponry in the world in WWII, and launched the 1st sattlite and man and woman into space, the failings of the USSR weren't all that apparent for a very long time.

It wasn't until the 1930s that the show trials and the purges began.

So did the West magically know what was going to occur under Stalin fifteen years early and decided to invade then? Furthermore, given that the West at best turned a blind eye to Hitler and at worst funded him and supported him in his enslavement of Central Europe, his crushing of the Communists and Socialists in Germany, his support of Franco, your claims ring a little hollow.

So, how did they know that a multiparty democracy in 1918 was going to become an abatoir in the 1930s? How did they know in the 1930s that the USSR was going to slow down its industrial growth in the 1960s? How did they know before hand how it was going to be a vastly inferior system in order to oppose it so murderously?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The flaw in the logic there is as follows:

The economy is not of a "set size." There is not some magical "aggregate productivity" number that the economy cannot surpass, and yet, your theory assumes that there is.

Productivity gains regularly cause recessions. That IS how the economy works.

Originally posted by Velociryx
One, there isn't enough jobs for everyone, because the new jobs are so productive.

This is not the way the economy works. You are looking at one half of the job loss/creation equation without acknowledging the other.

There is nothing automatic to job creation. You don't automatically get job creation from job loss. That is just silly.

Originally posted by Velociryx
Yes, *sometimes* when a company acquires new technology to make their workers more productive, the result is that they shave off a few workers from their work force.

Other times, the use the same number of workers (or add a few new ones) to use the more productive methods to increase their market share. (Same people, more productivity = more stuff & more stuff made and sold = more market share).

If they gain market share than there are still job loses in the industry.

Originally posted by Velociryx
Barring that, the people released from their job at company X could go to work for company Y and increase their market share.

Is this assuming majical job creation? I'm not sure.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
So long as the safety net is in place to ensure those at the bottom rung of the economic ladder have the basics covered (--ie, the bottom rung should not be a wretched place to be, where your choices are misery and hunger, but yes....capitalism demands that there be a top and a bottom, and its mechanisms provide the incentive to compete your way upwards), why SHOULD human beings get a stipend for simply existing? I strongly disagree with this argument.

Do you also think that that safety net ensures that everyone's basic needs are met?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by DaShi
Actually, he has a valid point. Is that why you're so quickly dismissing it?

He didn't bring up any points that weren't brought up before and ripped to shreads.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorry if I've covered points done in the other thread.

When they started from a much higher level of culture to begin with?

Che:
Why should the Russians be any different from the British or the French? How much exposure have you had with Russian culture, before the revolution?

I agree that communism has not had the ample opportunities in the West as it had in the Soviet Union and in China, but can you define what constitutes Communism? If Leninism, and Stalinism and Maoism all distort communism, this tells me two things.

1. Communism follows a strategy similar to religion, and not to Capitalism, in that the ideal must triumph over the real.

All these 'isms are attempts to put the ideals of Communism into practice. Whereas Capitalism contains a pragmatic core, where if something does not work, it must be changed, Communism has a doctrinal core.

What this doctrinal core means is that Communism does not have the tools needed to adapt to real-world situations without distorting communism into something less that communism.

You see my point Che?

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Kidicious
One, there isn't enough jobs for everyone, because the new jobs are so productive. Two, as you say, not everyone has equal capability to do the new jobs.

I'm not so sure that there aren't enough jobs for everyone - there may not be enough jobs of the attractive sort for everyone that happens to want one. My point though was that communism doesn't have an answer for it.

That changes everything, because capitalism can no longer be justified by the protestant work ethic. There are many people who want to work hard, but there are no jobs for them, because they flunked physics in college. And even if they did pass physics they just aren't as physics smart as the person who got the job.

Firstly, I assume you mean the proletariat work ethic? (Otherwise you might offend those who happen to be Catholic or of some religious denomination other than protestant ). As an aside I don't see how that differs from the work ethic in any standard capitalist economy?
Secondly, I revert to the point in my previous post about communism treating people and their occupations as equal when they are clearly not - manual labour was an example. If somebody is incapable or less capable of performing a task than somebody else (a task in what could be rated as a better salary job that, for example requires more working hours) in a capitalist system, said person isn't going to be helped in the least under a communist system unless said person has the job instead, in which case the whole system suffers. More to the point, under a communist system such a position would be less attractive (having longer hours), hence less advantageous with less renumeration, hence wouldn't be as well done by someone irritated at having to work longer for no gain, hence, again, the system suffers.
See the post invoking the Soviet grain shortages.

So without the protestant work ethic, which we've already seen breaking down with welfare and other programs capitalism faces a crisis. Even with govt programs people are suffering from poverty, and poverty of course causes all kinds of bad things. If capitalism were to survive and improve itself so that it could provide for humanity the protestat work ethic would have to be thrown out, and people like you would have to drop their objection for people to get paid more than their market worth.

What you seem to be arguing for here is an expanded social welfare system. The problem though is that little point you make about the "market worth".
Under capitalism, one can increase ones input and thereby increase the overall market worth.
Imposing a communist regime on a capitalist society wouldn't simply see an equitable distribution of its present resources, it would see, as has been pointed out much more eloquently by others posts, a drastic drop in the total and hence a huge loss for the upper class, a significant loss for the middle class and a relatively small gain for the lower class.
Look at the US as an example - those with lower class incomes (who would be helped under such a system) are ~ 25-30% of the population? Meaning that 70-75% would be hurt by the same. Not a good trade-off under any circumstances.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


He didn't bring up any points that weren't brought up before and ripped to shreads.

LOL.....

Tssk, Tssk.

In other news from the Kid news network,

The battle of Waterloo was a stunning victory for the French.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by ravagon


I'm not so sure that there aren't enough jobs for everyone - there may not be enough jobs of the attractive sort for everyone that happens to want one. My point though was that communism doesn't have an answer for it.



Firstly, I assume you mean the proletariat work ethic? (Otherwise you might offend those who happen to be Catholic or of some religious denomination other than protestant ). As an aside I don't see how that differs from the work ethic in any standard capitalist economy?
Secondly, I revert to the point in my previous post about communism treating people and their occupations as equal when they are clearly not - manual labour was an example. If somebody is incapable or less capable of performing a task than somebody else (a task in what could be rated as a better salary job that, for example requires more working hours) in a capitalist system, said person isn't going to be helped in the least under a communist system unless said person has the job instead, in which case the whole system suffers. More to the point, under a communist system such a position would be less attractive (having longer hours), hence less advantageous with less renumeration, hence wouldn't be as well done by someone irritated at having to work longer for no gain, hence, again, the system suffers.
See the post invoking the Soviet grain shortages.



What you seem to be arguing for here is an expanded social welfare system. The problem though is that little point you make about the "market worth".
Under capitalism, one can increase ones input and thereby increase the overall market worth.
Imposing a communist regime on a capitalist society wouldn't simply see an equitable distribution of its present resources, it would see, as has been pointed out much more eloquently by others posts, a drastic drop in the total and hence a huge loss for the upper class, a significant loss for the middle class and a relatively small gain for the lower class.
Look at the US as an example - those with lower class incomes (who would be helped under such a system) are ~ 25-30% of the population? Meaning that 70-75% would be hurt by the same. Not a good trade-off under any circumstances.

Sorry bud. I don't see you saying anything different from the other right wingers. There is a lot you don't know. Maybe you should go over the other 3 threads.

[Velociryx]

Kid, just so I understand your logic here:

You are saying that increases in productivity lead to aggregate job loss in the market?

-=Vel=-

[Berzerker]

I reject this notion that capitalism must have unemployment. We have unemployment, but we have a minimum wage too. Like it or not, what a minimum wage says (the leftist rationale) and what it does are different. It hurts those people whose monetary value in the marketplace is below the minimum by making it unprofitable to hire them. Now, I'm fairly sure there would be unemployment under capitalism, or any other system (no, I'm not including dictatorships that "require" employment), but minus all the people who are unemployed by choice (you know, welfare, job changes), capitalism employs the most along with producing the highest standard of living.

Some argue that the USSR started out way behind, but it collapsed. Why did it start out so far behind? Because the west had largely adopted capitalistic systems giving it both a head start and longevity.

Meldor -

Let us take a real world example. Farming in the USSR vs. farmer in the USA. Under the communist system, the farmer was told what to plant, when to plant it, how much to plant, what and how much pesticide to use, when to use it, etc. The farmers reward for getting in a bumper crop was the absolute same as if the crop yield was poor. There were no incentives for the farmer to adopt any improved method and any that were shoved down his throat were merely mimed at until the government turned its head. What this resulted in was a massive loss of domestic production, blamed on everything but the system of course and the embarrassment of having to purchase grain from outside sources, the US in particlular.

Let's not forget how Stalin starved millions in the Ukraine because the farmers there were "hoarding", i.e., not handing everything over to him... Killing off the best producers doesn't help. Why does mass murder so often accompany the rise of communism within a state? Oh yeah, gotta "re-educate" the masses...

[Velociryx]

Ohhhh! I can't wait till Kid sees that one! (well, and my question above, which I'm also curious to get a confirmation on)

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid, just so I understand your logic here:

You are saying that increases in productivity lead to aggregate job loss in the market?

-=Vel=-

Yep net sum zero arguement.

Additionally, the massive recessions undo any positive growth in the up years if I read correctly.

Stay tuned at 11:00 on Kid News

this just in, unemployment causes cancer.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid, just so I understand your logic here:

You are saying that increases in productivity lead to aggregate job loss in the market?

-=Vel=-

No. Productivity improvements cause higher unemployment Mr. Straw.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Some argue that the USSR started out way behind, but it collapsed. Why did it start out so far behind? Because the west had largely adopted capitalistic systems giving it both a head start and longevity.

No one is saying that capitalism can't be productive Berzerker. We're saying that it is unstable and headed for collapse.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

What if any evidence do you have that would indicate that the cycle of recession/depression in capitalistic societies is increasing in frequency or severity to be categorized as unstable?

All I'm hearing so far is speculation on a grand scale. If I wanted that I would visit the swami down the street.

[Velociryx]

Ummm.....but is not higher unemployment caused by there being fewer jobs in the market?

I mean, if unemployment goes up....then there's less jobs out there, yes? And if so, then productivity gains = net job loss = higher unemployment?

-=Vel=-
(just making sure I'm understanding your argument)

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Ummm.....but is not higher unemployment caused by there being fewer jobs in the market?

I mean, if unemployment goes up....then there's less jobs out there, yes? And if so, then productivity gains = net job loss = higher unemployment?

-=Vel=-
(just making sure I'm understanding your argument)

I know what you are trying to do Vel. I've played this stupid childish game before.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
What if any evidence do you have that would indicate that the cycle of recession/depression in capitalistic societies is increasing in frequency or severity to be categorized as unstable?

All I'm hearing so far is speculation on a grand scale. If I wanted that I would visit the swami down the street.

Strawman.

[Kidicious]

Ogie,

Yes we had the longest expansion in history, but that says nothing about the future. The new economy was only one expansion period. It doesn't mean that capitalism has improved in the long run. For one, the rest of the world didn't have an expansion period like that. And two, we see now with the current recession that those days are over.

[Velociryx]

So now you're not saying that productivity gains lead to job loss.

Which is it, kid?

Do gains in productivity lead to job loss, or don't they?

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx


So now you're not saying that productivity gains lead to job loss.

Which is it, kid?

Do gains in productivity lead to job loss, or don't they?

-=Vel=-

You know they do Vel. Go ahead and make your strawman argument now.

[Velociryx]

No strawman argument to make, I'm just making sure I understand you and this unique economic logic you bring to the table.

Safe to say too, that over the last 20 years, there have been steady productivity gains. What I'm wondering is, in your mind, what has that done to the overall size of the job market?

Given the productivity advances, and the fact that productivity decreases the number of jobs....the market should be a fair bit smaller now than it was 20 years ago, yes?

-=Vel=-

EDIT: The job market, I mean.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
No strawman argument to make, I'm just making sure I understand you and this unique economic logic you bring to the table.

Safe to say too, that over the last 20 years, there have been steady productivity gains. What I'm wondering is, in your mind, what has that done to the overall size of the job market?

Given the productivity advances, and the fact that productivity decreases the number of jobs....the market should be a fair bit smaller now than it was 20 years ago, yes?

-=Vel=-

EDIT: The job market, I mean.

There are factors that create jobs. Productivity gains are not one of those.

[Velociryx]

Of course, when I tried to argue that earlier, you made it clear that job losses due to productivity gains easily countered job creation factors.

So give me an indication: Given the productivity gains of the last 20 years, all the factory jobs lost due to companies leaving the US for SE Asia, etc., what's the job market look like in all. More, Less, or about the same as 20 years ago?

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Of course, when I tried to argue that earlier, you made it clear that job losses due to productivity gains easily countered job creation factors.

So give me an indication: Given the productivity gains of the last 20 years, all the factory jobs lost due to companies leaving the US for SE Asia, etc., what's the job market look like in all. More, Less, or about the same as 20 years ago?

-=Vel=-

In terms of the US the early 80s were very bad and the 90s were good, yes. Right now it looks like we are headed back to the long-term trend. In that case the unemployment rate will be higher than it was in 1983 this decade. BTW, world employment was nothing like US employment in the 90s.

My point is that, yes population increases, and so the total number of jobs may increase during cerain periods, but productivity gains have an increasing effect and job creation has a decreasing effect. We are headed down a dark hole.