Babylon and on - the new capitalism/communism thread

[Velociryx]

Yep...by default, the revolution you speak of MUST begin with mass confiscation of what is currently private property, and I'm happy to inform you that the owners will defend it (as is their right). So your entire revolution MUST begin with bloodshed, if it is to begin at all.

And IF it begins in bloodshed, then where are the "rights" and the "justice" and the "checks and balances"? What is to stop the head of this militant movement from simply taking what he wants, and isn't that kinna the point? We, the downtrodden, exploited workers of the world will take by force of arms what we don't feel like taking the time and effort to acquire by accepted means. Try and stop us, and they'll never find your body.

And Kid....you accused ME of projecting????

Yes, I have blood on my hands, Kid....my own. Would you like to know why? Because at various points I have worked 3, sometimes 4 jobs (sh*t jobs, too) to get where I am today. I have busted my A$$ for what I have, and it will be a cold, miserable day in hell when I let you and your red buddies waltz in and take it from me.

You want some? How 'bout workin' for it?

-=Vel=-

[The Templar]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


So how does this non-tyranical governement go about telling me I know longer own my own company or my intellectual property - they're all forfeit to the state, for the benefit of "the workers" because I have too much, and now I'm a state employee for whatever the standard allowance is?

Because if they politely suggested, my response would be a polite "go **** yourselves."

Well, now we know why if communists win an election there might be blood ...

Actually, the government has wise lattitude to condemn your property for eminent domain. Or the government can exercise its police power in ways that greatly limit the use of your property or reduce its value without compensating you. Your intellectual property? If the government declares necessity, it can bust your patent and not compensate you. The government can reduce your copyright's length of time. Even under our capitalist system, your property as at the mercy of the government. And only a total taking will likely force them to pay compensation - and then only if its not under necessity.

In fact, property - private, communal, whatever - is just a form of government regulation in the first place. Property is not naturally occuring, or parceled out by God. Its parameters are established by the state, and it is enforced by the state. Private property is only the assignment of entitlements to private individuals. WHo does the initial assignment and enforces the system thereafter? The state. "Your" property is only yours because the community has decided to allow such entitlements to exist.

This is another example of libertarianism just plain getting things wrong. Property is just another government regulation in the first place.

You can't have the kind of radical redistribution of property, jobs, ownership of intangibles, etc., without either massive force to compel such changes (so much for rights, checks and balances and non-tyranny), or without assuming people will magically say "yay, we'd love to, just tell us what you want, comrade."

In other words, your saying if the community decides to reassign entitlements, you'll start killing people?

[Velociryx]

This is not about the community "deciding" anything....it's about a group of thugs who want to tell me what my best interests are, starting with the fact that it's in my best interest to give up my posessions and turn them over to the state.

That does not sound like a freely made decision to me....it sounds like the same old song and dance we've seen from the communist race horse time and time again.

Collectivization, anyone? Now THERE's your bloodless revolution hard at work....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Oh, and....something tells me that when the big revolution starts, it won't be starting with free elections about what to do.

You can't afford free elections on the matter, because the whole idea is to get everything out of the hands of private individuals and into the hands of the states.

Lose that election, and the revolution dies a stillborn death, so don't equate thugs with guns taking what want with free elections on a matter. Hardly the same thing, true?

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Vel,

You seem to think that the revolution should benefit you. You've gotten enough benefits.

[Velociryx]

Thankfully Kid, it's not for you to say if I have, or have not gotten "enough" benefits.

While you might not mind having your future dictated to you by the party bosses, a great many others *do* mind, and in fact, take offense at the notion that some monolithic government agency somehow "knows" what's in my best interests.

Why not leave it to each person to shape his own future....his own destiny? So long as there is a safety net in place (which there is right now, btw), what is the possible harm in it?

You say that there is a lot that can be done, using the current system to improve the position of the less fortunate. Would it not be a better use of resources....would it not be more rational (since you like that word) to fully explore the possibilities of the current system, rather than tearing it down in a way that is sure to cause bloodshed?

I have nothing against you (or anyone who shares your beliefs), but you cannot say the same for me. Obviously not, if you are willing to say that I "have the blood of the workers on my hands." Given that's what you believe, and given that the workers are whom you profess a desire to help, of course you have something against me. Probably even more than the norm, because unlike some of those fat cats out there (the vast, vast sea of people you claim were just "born wealthy"), I actually rose from the bottom. I shoulda been the poster child for your movement, but instead, by virtue of my own choices and hard work, became the opposite.

And we can't have that, now can we?

-=Vel=-

[alva]

Would this be a bad time to say that the answer/solution/thruth probabli lies somewhere in the middle

* cough - europe - cough *

[Velociryx]

I'll even go so far as to help you guys out.

If by some bizzare conflux of events, I was to convert to the red side tomorrow, I would not be content to simply sit around idly and talk about the revolution. Hell no! By God, if we're gonna do it, let's light this candle, baby!

That said, here's how I'd start:

1) Place loyalists in high-ranking positions of the nation's military

2) Acquire three low-yield nukes

3) Quietly ensure that some kinna dumb, easily controlled person made it into the White House.

4) Place and detonate two of them immediately to get things rolling - The first would be detonated on Wall Street, shutting down the nation's financial heart. The second would knock out the pentagon (ensuring that none of our faithful were there), which, while not paralyzing the nation's military apparatus, would be a strong symbolic blow nonetheless.

5) Use some of my well place operatives to strongly insinuate that the bombings were the result of terrorist groups. You think the Patriot Acts that followed 9/11 were bad? Wait till you SEE what I could get our easily controlled President to sign off on after a pair of nukes get set off! We could turn the whole place into Commie-Land practially overnight!

6) Organize a quiet takeover of the military (with the people railing about hunting down the terrorists, and a few more focused on the new laws being hastily enacted by congress, nobody would pay the least bit of attention

7) Suspend all property rights (we'd say it was a temporary measure, of course....just until the financial mess that the destruction of Wall Street was sorted out), and use the military to arrest anybody who objected.

We may or may not have an easy time controlling the nation's nuclear assets right away, but that's the reason for the third low-yield nuke....keep it in reserve, and when the predictable resistance movement arises, use it to erase whatever city they're most strongly based in (and of course, let on that you have plenty more, and that it'd be in their best interests to simply surrender).

There ya go....sure it's bloody, but...aren't they all?

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Oh, I'd also have a purging of the upper echelons of government officials, using my highly placed sources to "reveal" that a number of our country's elected officials were in the pocket of wealthy middle eastern sultans with close ties to terrorist groups and that it was THEY who let this whole mess happen....of course, their replacements would all be devoutly faithful....

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I have nothing against you (or anyone who shares your beliefs), but you cannot say the same for me. Obviously not, if you are willing to say that I "have the blood of the workers on my hands." Given that's what you believe, and given that the workers are whom you profess a desire to help, of course you have something against me. Probably even more than the norm, because unlike some of those fat cats out there (the vast, vast sea of people you claim were just "born wealthy"), I actually rose from the bottom. I shoulda been the poster child for your movement, but instead, by virtue of my own choices and hard work, became the opposite.

And we can't have that, now can we?

-=Vel=-

It's got nothing to do with your socio-economic status and everything to do with the winkies that you post while you explain why you should be rich while others should suffer from poverty.

[Velociryx]

Quote me. I challenge you to quote me ANYWHERE saying that I should succeed at the expense of anyone else. That my success should come at the expense of another.

I'll wait right here for you to get that quote.

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Quote me. I challenge you to quote me ANYWHERE saying that I should succeed at the expense of anyone else. That my success should come at the expense of another.

I'll wait right here for you to get that quote.

-=Vel=-

Oh, that's too easy. Just go back to the last winkie.

[Kidicious]

I guess I'm just done here.

[Velociryx]

So....if it's that easy, bring the quote! Lemme see! C'mon....I dare ya....

-=Vel=-

[GeneralTacticus]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Not saying that it is. Again though, if we're gonna debate the two, then we have to look at the history of both systems.

Actually, you did say that very specifically. And if you think you didn't... what exactly did you mean by "NEVER in any capitalist experiment did we see the rise of a dictator who condemned hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths for disagreeing with the machinery he was implementing. "?

Communism, on the other hand, has always "sprung up" with a very particular KIND of government....the centralized, authoritarian kind. Not once or twice, not not and then, but EVERY SINGLE TIME we trot it out.

Communism begins with the revolution. The siezure of property. There aren't many polite ways to do that. You can ask, sure, but odds are overwhelmingly against the people you ask "oh, by the way, can we take your stuff?" saying yes to that.

So...since siezure implies force anyway, you....use force.

That starts the ball rolling.

If they don't give it up, they get...gone.

Then of course, having come to power by way of force of arms, having determined that a centralized economy is the best way to proceed, there's the question of who will control said economy.

We could pick a random person each year and let him do it as an independent third party agency, but that's a disaster waiting to happen, so no.

But, we've got the revolutionary army right here (the one that took everybody's stuff), so the situation is just peachy perfect to set up a centralized, authoritarian government (ostensibly "just" to manage the economy, but we all know what happens next, don't we?)

And then, having set the government up to "run the economy," having dispensed with the first round of dealing with the dissenters (what are their names? Don't ask....it's harder to stomach if we know their names.....harder to justify what we did....just look at them as a "whole group," Comrade), we have to make sure that OTHER revolutionaries don't come along behind us and undo our good work, don't we? That means a stronger state machine. One that's filled up with "Watchers" who can, in their benevolence, look down on the general population like a shephard watching his sheep, both to ensure that none of them think counter-revolutionary thoughts, and to ensure that the evils of capitalism do not begin to take root.

If they do....well, the solution that started the revolution worked pretty well, so no need to change things now....let's just off them too, right?

If it is true that the communist crowd has learned from history, then one would think that the communist revolutions seen after Soviet Russia's would have played out differently.

Did they?

Nope.

And in the absence of ANY sort of explanation about what would be done differently "this time," why should we expect the "next revolution" to be any different?

Is that....rational?

-=Vel=-

If they actually haven't come up with a means of not repeating history, then no, it isn't. However, I'm not arguing that, so bringing that up with me is pointless.

[Velociryx]

Gen. Tacticus....actually I did say what, very specifically?

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

And Kid....I'm still waiting on that quote. You LOVE quoting, so....show me.

-=Vel=-

[GeneralTacticus]

Gen. Tacticus....actually I did say what, very specifically?

That (and I quote) "NEVER in any capitalist experiment did we see the rise of a dictator who condemned hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths for disagreeing with the machinery he was implementing. "

So, if you did not mean what I thought you meant, what did you mean?

[Velociryx]

Exactly that.

To my knowledge, there has been no dictatorial rise to power in any capitalist experiment where the dictator in question condemned hundreds of thousands of the people the government supposedly represented to die because they (the folks condemned to die) were strenuously resisting the "switch" to a capitalist-oriented economy.

Contrast that with the big red pony, however, and we see that it's pretty standard fare for the local dictator to put to death any who oppose the switch to state ownership.

You disagree?

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Sava


That's exactly my point, communism has not yet existed. I just wish people would know what they are talking about when they bash something. The Soviet Union sucked ass. But it wasn't Communism. And I'm not saying Communism is good or it would work. Personally, I think it fails to take into account the criminal element, that's why attempts to get it to work have failed.

I'm in very late, but as I perused this thread, I suggest this a very telling statement.

Not only does communism fail to take into account the criminal element but moreover the inherent criminal tendencies of human nature. True communism idealizes human nature and as we should all know, strip away the thin veneer of civilization and human beings can be a downright nasty creature full of all sorts of lusts be they power, sex, money, food, etc.

Any system that fails to recognize the inherent nature of man will no doubt be victimized by that same nature.

[Velociryx]

Well said, Master Og, and hiya! How ya been?

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Hey there, I too couldn't resist a little red baiting.

Doin fine down here in the land of Dixie. PM me some time Vel and we can catch up.

Og

[Velociryx]

Kid: I'm perfectly willing to continue our little debate, but if you're going to "accuse me" of saying something like that, pony up, pal! Show me the specific quote in this or ANY OTHER thread (search 'em all for all I care) where I have EVER said that my success does or should come at the expense of any other individual.

I'm all about personal effort and hard work. I don't screw people over. Never have, never will, and I resent the implication, so yeah, I'm calling you on it. Quote me. Right here for all the world to see. Quote me saying something like that.

Or are you....having a spot of trouble finding that quote all of a sudden?

-=Vel=-

[GeneralTacticus]

Exactly that.

To my knowledge, there has been no dictatorial rise to power in any capitalist experiment where the dictator in question condemned hundreds of thousands to die because they (the folks condemned to die) were strenuously resisting the "switch" to a capitalist-oriented economy.

Contrast that with the big red pony, however, and we see that it's pretty standard fare for the local dictator to put to death any who oppose the switch to state ownership.

You disagree?

Yes. I fail to see why you think that repression in those societies was solely ddirected at oponents of the dictatorship and not of the economic system it brought with it, while at the same time thinking that repression in communist nations was directed solely at people who opposed the economic system, rather than the political one.

[Velociryx]

Hotlanta, if memory serves! And yessir! Will do! TONS of stuff to catch up on, I'd wager!

-=Vel=-

PS: And welcome to the fight!

[Velociryx]

General Tacticus: Prolly because....people tend to resent the idea of having their personal property suddenly (and with the threat of violence against them if they resist) coopted by the state (ostensibly to jumpstart the centrally controlled economy)? And if someone tries, then they'll be inclined to take up arms to prevent it? (and of course, the dictator can't have that)

On the other hand, who's gonna be up in arms at the prospect of possibly owning something? Sure, they will oppose the dictator for other reasons, but not because he's allowing them private ownership.

-=Vel=-

[GeneralTacticus]

General Tacticus: Prolly because....people tend to resent the idea of having their personal property suddenly (and with the threat of violence against them if they resist) coopted by the state? And if someone tries, then they'll be inclined to take up arms to prevent it? (and of course, the dictator can't have that)

I don't disagree that there would be resistance to that (depending on how said property was acquired, it might be justified or not). What I am disagreeing with is your apparent assertion that the reason repression is recquired in a communist society is the economic system imposed, while not acknowledging that capitalism isn't always welcomed with open arms either (especially not the Pinochet/Suharto variety...)

On the other hand, who's gonna be up in arms at the prospect of possibly owning something? Sure, they will oppose the dictator for other reasons, but not because he's allowing them private ownership.

Um... Somebody who probably isn't going to own anything anyway, and who rather objects to the elimination of government services such as healthcare and education (which communist governments often seem to be quite keen on extending...). And, of course, there's also the fact that they may not like the fact that it's now more profitable for landowners to grow cash crops for export rather tha food for internal consumption, which tends to result in people being hungry...

[DinoDoc]

sig test

[Velociryx]

Okay, I acknowledge the possibility. Still don't know of any cases where that's happened, but I readily concede the possibility that it could. Even if it has, I think history will back me up when I say that it's far, FAR easier to find examples of mass millions being murdered with the imposition of communism than with the "imposition" of capitalism.

As to the reasons for resisting the rise of communism in my example, resisting the state = resisting the economic system's imposition (since the state derives its power by having a lock on the economy. They control the keys TO the economy, and because they do, there's no separation possible to any meaningful extent. The state IS the economy.

-=Vel=-

[GeneralTacticus]

Okay, I acknowledge the possibility. Still don't know of any cases where that's happened, but I readily concede the possibility that it could.

The possibility that what could happen? You could be meaning a number of different things here...

As to the reasons for resisting the rise of communism in my example, resisting the state = resisting the economic system's imposition (since the state derives its power by having a lock on the economy. They control the keys TO the economy, and because they do, there's no separation possible to any meaningful extent. The state IS the economy.

I don't think you understand what I meant. I'm saying that people might be killed not for resisting the nationalization of the economy, but rather for resisting the dictatorship - just like you claimed would happen if a capitalist dictatorship took power.

[Velociryx]

The possibility that people could see the imposition of capitalism as being so disruptive as being worth resisting. Sure. The switch doesn't happen overnight (Russia, right now), and it could lead to people resisting on those grounds.

I get what you're saying, but in the case of communism, they (the state/dictatorship and the economy) are one and the same. Resist one, you're resisting both by default.

In the case of the capitalist dictator, you could resist on the grounds that the dictator is an ass of a man, OR because you hate/are fearful of capitalism, but in this case, they're (obviously) not one and the same.

Resistance is resistance, so at the end of the day it's more semantics than anything. What's NOT semantics is that every time the communists come to power, LOTS of people die.

But that's not the case on the other side of the proverbial coin.

-=Vel=-