Babylon and on - the new capitalism/communism thread

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You sure can save money. In fact it's the most natural thing to do. You have to think if you want to spend it. The money is otherwise automatically saved.

isnt that the whole point of this massive cultural machine pushing consumerism 24/7? yes we have a culture of consumerism that helps us maintain this satanic circle of viciousness that drives us. but just cuz its not natural dont mean we haven't gotten very good at it.

[Kidicious]

Yes, consumerism has benefited the economy greatly, but I don't think it has done enough. We seem to keep reaching a point where we are to far in debt and then the economy falters.

[Kidicious]

I'm gonna sign off for awhile. Talk to you later.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Yes, consumerism has benefited the economy greatly, but I don't think it has done enough. We seem to keep reaching a point where we are to far in debt and then the economy falters.

yes we lack control. hopefully we can improve restraint/control whilst not depowering the machine.

tho on a side note it is depressing that our economically projected future is that the vast majority of human effort will be spend supplying goods for the rest of humanity in basically a service type of way(movies/cars/stereos/massages etc...).

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by GePap

Imran:
Good for Edison.But I really fail to think that without edison there would be no movies, lightbulbs or so forth, they would have come anyway (as they are techincal breakthorughs, not huge annalytical jumps), if not as fast.

Gepap is right as far as movies are concerned : the Lumières brothers patented their cinématographe in 1895, independently of Edison works.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Higher wages encourage firms to increase expenditures on machines to lower overall costs.

Because they wouldn't do this even with lower wages?

I have to contradict on this point; a machine not profitable with a given level of salary can become profitable after a significant increase in the salaries costs. It is one of the reasons why ANY increase in the minimum salary rate will result in a net loss of jobs.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by The Templar


Again, the greatest innovations in science have tended to be government sponsored or done in academia (and academia has only recently gone so corporate). Companies will not outlay the capital unless they are guaranteed a profit. Thus NASA, the internet, the geonome, etc. all started out as public sector projects. But I guess you have ceded this point to me.

This just proveS that the economic system prevailing in the western countries does not preclude research to work for the good not only of the groups, or the nation, but the whole humankind.

[Velociryx]

Hey, I'm all for trying new stuff! And in fact, Communism HAS been tried.

Again....and.....again....and.....AGAIN.

After a while though (especially when you are dealing with a system that causes death and suffering for millions of people with no sign that it'll ever get any better than that), there's a point where you say: "Hmmm....well, I guess THAT didn't work!" and move on to try something else.

Capitalism was tried. There were bumps along the way (big bumps even. bumps that caused suffering for a lot of people), but 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. OTOH, that's....pretty much standard fare for implementing communism. It's a bit different than say, continuing to experiment with different filaments for the lightbuld, cos nobody's dying. You can keep doing that for months on end till you get it right, and who cares? But when you implement communism and sign the death warrants of another couple million....it matters.

So at what point.....after how many failed attempts do you simply admit that it doesn't work as advertised?

IMO, we reached that point a good bit ago, which is why when your revolution comes (assuming that it does), I'll be right there in line to resist it.

It's a dead horse.

You can drag it across the finish line, sure....but why?

-=Vel=-

[GeneralTacticus]

Capitalism was tried. There were bumps along the way (big bumps even. bumps that caused suffering for a lot of people), but 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.

*AHEM* Excluding rather a large portion of world history there, aren't you? Chile and Indonesia come to mind for starters...

[Velociryx]

In looking at both situations, I think it's reasonable to say that there was more than just "resistence to capitalism" going on there. But with communism (since again, every time communism has been implemented, it brings with it that dictatorship), it's a bit of a different breed, no?

-=Vel=-

[GeneralTacticus]

In looking at both situations, I think it's reasonable to say that there was more than just "resistence to capitalism" going on there.

Um... what exactly do you mean here?

But with communism (since again, every time communism has been implemented, it brings with it that dictatorship), it's a bit of a different breed, no?

I really couldn't care less. I just get rather annoyed when people act as if communism is the only political philosophy whose followers have committed mass murder on a gigantic scale...

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Why is that important to the debate? Because arguing from the POV of "pure communism" (since nobody can point to an example of it) is immaterial to the world that we live in (just as if we on the other side, were arguing from a "purely capitalist" POV).

It is interesting that one cannot argue from Christianity from a theoretical viewpoint (ala Holy Warrior and ObiWan using the Bible to buttress their positions) without an uproar, but we are expected to allow the Communists to do the same - and if we don't, they start an uproar.

GePap: "Have you read the Manifesto?"

No. Not being a Moslem, I haven't read the Koran either.

[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.

Capitalism has caused misery and suffering. That's true.

Capitalism has "sprung up" under a variety of governmental forms, sometimes flourishing, sometimes withering.

Where capitalism has taken root and thrived (most spectacularly, when paired with democratically-minded governments), it has *dramatically* improved living conditions for the people living under the system.

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=-

[Kidicious]

What is this thing about claiming that communism is a religion? Get a real argument.

[Velociryx]

Kid: We've been hitting you with real arguments for 600+ posts now. Generally, what happens is you ignore them tho....a workable debate strategy, though not terribly effective at changing anybody's mind.

Any answers at all re: how you'll prevent the rise of a centralized, authoritarian government in your glorious revolution? Any notions on non-lethal ways of dealing with dissenters who complain about you taking their property?

Templar: Meant to ask you earlier....what's your cite for the data that says the majority of people are against private property ownership? I'd be curious to see that....

-=Vel=-

[JohnT]

You mean an argument where I boldly state false figures, ala you and Che?

You mean an argument based upon subjective opinion, one that starts "I believe...?"

You mean an argument where I have to ignore all the real world examples in order to make the assumptions work?

[Velociryx]

Hey John! As an experiment, we should try it....you know....see how the other side lives:

*Getting into Communist-Mode*

* You guys don't know what you're talking about! There's a secret SET of unemployment numbers that the government collects, but never mentions CLEARLY showing that the permanant unemployment rate is 14%!!!!

* Nobody cares about private property. In fact, the majority of people don't even LIKE it!

* Capitalism hasn't improved living conditions for it's people. Not one bit.

* Communism will work next time....trust us....don't ask us to tell you how or why it'll work, just....have faith!


*dropping out of communist mode*

Yeah....it IS kinna fun...

And btw, Communism (as has been pointed out by other communists in this thread) is an aethist theory. Why? Because with the state in control of everything, there's no room for religion. That party line becomes the equivalent of the religious mantra for the faithful, and the "heretics"....well, we all know what happens to them....

-=Vel=-

[JohnT]

The really interesting thing is how they don't come back (in regards to the "religion" argument) with something that is supported by the historical evidence:

Which is that any economic/political system will work regardless how (non)corrupt and (in)efficient it is, if the populace believes in it to a sufficient degree.

Capitalism can collapse... if the people lose their faith in it. Communism did collapse because people lost their faith in it. Religions die when people lose their faith, as do governments, economic systems, social structures, and hell, just about every type of social organization we've developed over the past millennia. This is one of those things that is just so freakin' self-evident that almost everybody misses it.

Except me, of course.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Any answers at all re: how you'll prevent the rise of a centralized, authoritarian government in your glorious revolution? Any notions on non-lethal ways of dealing with dissenters who complain about you taking their property?

I've got no problem with an authoritarian govt if it will allow us to crush our enemies.

[Velociryx]

::nodding::

Yes, I can see that.

And "your enemies" would include:

* Foriegn governments
* Your own citizens who dared to have a thought that ran counter to official party dogma
* Your own citizens who don't chant the official party dogma loudly or enthusiastically enough
* Your own citizens who dare to dream of a better life for themselves
* Anyone who threatens the security of your centralized, authoritarian position

And you wonder why communist governments have so many enemies....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Ahhh, and so much for having learned the lessons of history, eh?

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
Religions die when people lose their faith, as do governments, economic systems, social structures, and hell, just about every type of social organization we've developed over the past millennia. This is one of those things that is just so freakin' self-evident that almost everybody misses it.

Except me, of course.

Let me tell you why communism is not going to die like some old religrion. Marx used science to show that the capitalists exploit the workers. Now you can deny that all you want, but you can not show that it's not true. Every time capitalism fails, and it fails every f'king day for billions of people, people blaim the exploitation of the working class. This will never go away. If you are expecting it to go away like some ancient religion you will be waiting forever.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Let me tell you why communism is not going to die like some old religrion.

If it ever manages to work on a national scale the rantings of the faithful might gain more crednece.

[Velociryx]

which is about how long it'll take you to implement your glorious revolution? *G*

I do not accept that the state is in a better position to know what is best for me than I do.

I do not accept that the group as a whole should be placed before the individual. The individual is what makes society great, NOT the other way around.

I do not accept that a system of government that has only one (crude) means of enforcing its will (ie - the barrel of a gun) truly has my best interests at heart.

I do not accept that the party bosses are benelovent, nor that their vision of the perfect tomorrow meshes with my own goals and desires.

I therefore utterly and completely reject the utopia you are trying to sell.

You are *terrified* of the power of the individual, and rightly so.

-=Vel=-

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yes, and socialiam marches on gloriously for billions of people.

Marx used pseudoscience to show that 19th century industrial laissez faire capitalism was nasty. Gee, he figured out something that just about everyone knew.

Trouble is, "capitalism" has evolved and is continuing to evolve, while Marxists thump their Good Book, awating their Revelation, the "historical inevitability" of the second coming, er, um, revolution.

The only addons to Marxist theory that have been put into practice are variations of Leninist notions of the Party and totalitarianism.

Of course, it's much easier to sit and ***** about the perceived injustices of the present system than it is to get involved in it and improve things. Just don't use up too much oxygen or take up too much space, y'all are wasting resources.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
What is this thing about claiming that communism is a religion? Get a real argument.

Many of Marx's ideas and claims have very close analogs in Judaeo-Christian theology, and this "inevitable" revolution and the conditions it brings is right out of Revelations.

Besides, why should we get "real" arguments, you haven't yet? You talk about a dead system being able to magically do all sorts of things. At the same time, you insist without any basis or evidence on the "inevitable" (keep that faith in the Second Coming ) collapse of a live, evolving econimic system which is neutral to successful in its implementation for the whole range of people.

[Velociryx]

Great Scot, MtG! I just had an epiphany!

Biblical parallels....dead system....rises from the grave to restore order and bring peace and harmony to earth.

Marx = Jesus!



-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
You are *terrified* of the power of the individual, and rightly so.

-=Vel=-

If you mean that I'm afraid of capitalists, I say only when they are in power. Out of power they are just whiners.

[Velociryx]

Ummm....actually, no.

OTOH, a communist without his jackboots on is like a fish out of water.

'bout all he can do is stand around with his buddies complaining about how exploitive the system is.

Rather than whine about it, how 'bout get in there and "exploit" it right back? Oh....I forgot! You're already doing that! (and good luck with the accounting degree!)

-=Vel=-

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


I have to contradict on this point; a machine not profitable with a given level of salary can become profitable after a significant increase in the salaries costs. It is one of the reasons why ANY increase in the minimum salary rate will result in a net loss of jobs.

A classic, simple example of this is found between the US and Mexico. In the US, if you want to bust up some concrete or asphalt, you hire a guy with a jackhammer.

In Mexico, you do that if you're in a hurry (i.e. if there's some premium value in getting done as fast as possible), otherwise, you hire two or three guys with sledgehammers and shovels.

The jackhammer daily rental rate is about the same in each country, but the difference in labor costs is such that it's cheaper to go for the more labor intensive approach south of the border, while it's always cheaper to rent the equipment and have one guy do the job quickly on the US side.