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

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Creating shortages of things like toilet paper is a choice that the USSR made. The USSR really didn't have the production possibilities to produce all of those war goods without sacrificing consumer goods. That was unfortunate, but you really shouldn't judge a communist system with greater production capabilities by the experience of the USSR.

But the point is that resources are allocated through directives. Estimation what each person will consume is nearly impossible. The more people who exist within that system, the larger the difference there will be between what people need and what is being given. Your resources are not longer being allocated efficiently. There is also a limited amount of resources because even in communist countries, money doesn't grow on trees.
The government needs to continue funding factories who churn out forks even if everyone has all the forks they need. They no longer have enough money to fund say a toilet paper factory, and people want more toilet paper then there is available. Now they are forced to use bark, or pinecones.

[Velociryx]

No, no, NO, Lawrence! You see, what will happen is that the central planning yahoos will be specially chosen for their empathic abilities to intuitively KNOW precisely what allocations to make. They will probably have to use human-alien hybrids (as soon as warp drive becomes a reality) from the planet Nizzbah IV, because these hybrids have the ability to hook their brains directly into the central computer bank where all the resources are allocated from.

I've heard so many "shoot the moon" communist theories that it's a blast to listen to them all! Crazy stuff, like Oh, it'd work beautifully if all the production facilities were on the moon and controlled by robots

THE MOON, for Chrissakes?!

It just keeps getting better, I'll tell ya!

-=Vel=-

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I have an friend who was born in India. He's the most unassuming person ever. Hes about 5ft 5in, wears black glasses, gets excited about going to class everyday, and does no physical activity. He's also been mugged three times without resisting (we all say that it was the same guy who follows him around and knows where to get a few quick dollars) Anyhow, the last year or so, he became a hardcore communist. We will be sitting in history class, and then he will yell out with 'And then the workers will rise up and kill the rich bastards.' The best part is that he takes it all so seriously, and he doesnt seem like someone who would advocate violent revoultion.
We are very good friends and always discuss economics.

[The Vagabond]

Templar: NASA is a good example of clever use of the public sector in the capitalist society. However, this can't be used as an argument for the public sector in general, for it consistently proved its inefficiency in most realms of business. But it's a good argument against all-out capitalists who deny the public sector whatsoever.

[Berzerker]

C'mon, NASA is a boondoggle costing us billions and lives.

[The Vagabond]

Berzerker: how can you say this about such a noble cause as space exploration?

[The Vagabond]

LoA: yes, shortage of consumer goods seems to be a fundamental problem of the planned economy. It can't merely be attributed to the necessity of producing more important items, as Kid implied. However, this factor (the necessity to produce war toys) surely aggravated the comsumer goods problem even more.

[JCG]

I just hope that whoever "wins" doesn't **** up this world much more than it already has been.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Absolutely brilliant argument, Gepap! Guys, check this out! None of the following was invented by, or done by individuals questioning the world around them! (I suppose then, that leaves the borg collective or some other sci-fi construct...yep....surely)

Polio vaccine
Light Bulb
Cotten Gin
The Airplane
Splitting the atom
etc. etc, to infinity.....

What kind of threadbare argument is that? Individuals are not inclined to question the world around them? So....none of the folks who did any of the above actually existed. Nor did DaVinci or any of the other great thinkers from his age.

Oh Lord!

Can you really not spot the obvious flaws in this?

How many human beings have ever lived? 70 billion? take all those inventions, all those innovations: how many are there? Infinity? hardly. lets say there is 2 billion, just a simple random number. Ok, and lest assume that a different person invented each of them, OK? So 2 out of 70, or less then 5% of human beings under this scenerio inveted something. Wow, what a huge number, 4-5%!!

Who was Da Vinci's neighbor? Who was his grocer? Don;t know their names? Why not? Because they were no Da Vinci's. The fact that we remember Da Vinci at all is proof that he WAS NOT COMMON.

You are so uttery bent on using your life as an argument (for some reason), so lets use it. Of all the people YOU know or have met, what percentage have come up with some innovation? What percentage are politically active? Be honest. Is it 50%, 60% 90%?

The reason we remember people like Newton is because they did go beyond what everyone else was doing. Are you willing to tell me that in 1690 half of the people of Europe were on the verge of coming up with a new method of mathematics by themselves?

No, no, NO, Lawrence! You see, what will happen is that the central planning yahoos will be specially chosen for their empathic abilities to intuitively KNOW precisely what allocations to make.

Actualy, as I said before, if in a system each family could be provided with a cheap internet browsing unit, each indvidual membert or family unit could state precisely what their preferences were. So they could, even without their superpowers, know where resources were wanted (knowing where they are nEEDED as opposed ot WANTED) is so much simpler tyhan that.

See how innovation makes NEW systems possible?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Had the capitalists felt that Hitler was dangerous to their interests, the Army would have deposed him in a heartbeat.

Not only is this the funniest, but also the dumbest thing, I've ever heard you say, che! I expect better from you... ok, so maybe I don't.

[Velociryx]

Well now....let's have a closer look, shall we?

When we're talking about innovation, the first thing to recognize is that innovation can take innumerable forms, would you agree?

Art, science, literature, engineering....innovation can occur in all of those fields, and more, yes?

Thus, every book, every painting, every invention (from the electric light bulb right down to the pocket fisherman), every advance in engineering, new idea in farming (crop rotation, for example), all of it...innovative to one degree or another (we'll save the discussion of the relative *worth* of some of those innovations for another day, since that's a whole 'nother ball of wax).

Given that, I would say that since the beginning of the very first communist revolution, there have EASILY been 2 Billion innovations....and almost certainly even more than that. The sheer amount of invention that has taken place in this century alone is simply staggering.

Now....I am not aware of any database that tracks innovation or invention by the economic system under which it was created, but we can look at the major innovations of the last century and change and see where THEY were created, and have a pretty good handle on it (on the thinking that the system that spawned the greater number of relatively more "important" innovations, was also the likliest candidate for spawning the greater portion of the "less important" ones.

And, in perusing through the list of great innovations over the last hundred years....what do we find?

We find that it has been almost a complete shutout.

Surprise, surprise, but the system that rewards innovation, invention and innovators who apply their personal (*individual*) effort and creativity toward the creation of new things has heads and shoulders MORE such inventions under its belt than the system which represses and suppresses.

Innovation is far more likely where it is allowed to thrive and where there is the promise of reward. In a system which specializes in repression and killing any who disagree even marginally with the edicts of the party bosses, and in which the state would co-opt any invention made immediately--thus killing off any hope of compensation for brilliance--it comes as no great shock that the brakes are put on innovation. Does it happen? Sure...some. I'll innovate if I know that my family will vanish unless I do, but that's hardly the same thing, is it?

Cute example re: the 'net and a "resource browser." Neat to think about which culture (capitalist or communist) spawned every bit of technology used in your example, huh?

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious
War is caused by the competition for resources. That is a capitalist idea.

I'll grant that war is caused by the aquisistion of resources dating back to the earliest conflicts. Slaves, women, food, goods etc. Don't lay that at the feet of capitalism though. Lay that at the feet of human nature. A human nature that naturally goes counter to giving itself to the larger mass collective.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Well now....let's have a closer look, shall we?

When we're talking about innovation, the first thing to recognize is that innovation can take innumerable forms, would you agree?

No, I would not. Depends on the field. In art, in thoery they are infinate. In most other fields there are limits to what can be done.

Thus, every book, every painting, every invention (from the electric light bulb right down to the pocket fisherman), every advance in engineering, new idea in farming (crop rotation, for example), all of it...innovative to one degree or another (we'll save the discussion of the relative *worth* of some of those innovations for another day, since that's a whole 'nother ball of wax).

Given that, I would say that since the beginning of the very first communist revolution, there have EASILY been 2 Billion innovations....and almost certainly even more than that. The sheer amount of invention that has taken place in this century alone is simply staggering.

Actually, no. How many patents are in the US patents office? I think 500 million would sounds high. And if you said the lib of congress has 100 million totally different titles, that is still pretty high. That gets you 600 million (both using numbers that are way up there). A new article in a new magazine is not an innovation within the spirit of the word.

And the arguemn about the importance is crucial. The pocket Fisherman is hardly a revolutionary item. Being conservative and adverse to significant change does not mean adverse to all change. Mosy people will gladly accet any device that simply (and only) lowers how much labor they must use. That is light years away from accepting anything Revolutionary. Having 5 different magazines about WW2 hardly changes the social structure one bit.

We find that it has been almost a complete shutout.

Surprise, surprise, but the system that rewards innovation, invention and innovators who apply their personal (*individual*) effort and creativity toward the creation of new things has heads and shoulders MORE such inventions under its belt than the system which represses and suppresses.

Vel, you must love or have some sort of fanatical attachment to the USSR, becuase you can;t seem to move beyond it. A communist system can in theory be just as effective at ofstering innovation as another. You simply switch the reward system from wealth to something else (becuase no matter how much you may want it to be true Vel, Communism DOES NOT demand equal ends for all people. The sooner you dumpt this notion the better).

Innovation is far more likely where it is allowed to thrive and where there is the promise of reward. In a system which specializes in repression and killing any who disagree even marginally with the edicts of the party bosses, and in which the state would co-opt any invention made immediately--thus killing off any hope of compensation for brilliance--it comes as no great shock that the brakes are put on innovation. Does it happen? Sure...some. I'll innovate if I know that my family will vanish unless I do, but that's hardly the same thing, is it?

Again: do you spend your whole time studying the USSR or something? You really can't move 2 steps beyond this. Let me repeat this: COMMUNISM DOES NOT DEMAND EQUAL OUTCOMES.. The rewards of innovation can not be such as to exploit somebody else, but rewards can still be had. What you keep poiting out are the terrors of authocratic or authoritarian politics (not of a communistic economy or social structure), and I do agree that totalitarian and autocratic politics are bad.

Cute example re: the 'net and a "resource browser." Neat to think about which culture (capitalist or communist) spawned every bit of technology used in your example, huh?

-=Vel=-

Culture is not capitalist, anymore than religion is capitalist. The net came about from a government porject. We spoke about this before. Capitalism shaped how the net looks now, it did not invent it. And you can;t give me any theoretical arguemts (because I must say you NEVER give theoretical arguements) about how these things would be impossible under a collective economic system.

There is a difference (a big one) betweein saying: this is who the word got to be and this is the only way the world could have gotten to be this way.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Templar -

The first has been a waste, the second was invented by Al Gore, and the Genome was accomplished first by a private company. The government then "asked" the private concern to join forces with the government project. But yes, once the genome is identified, other private concerns will start the R&D to advance medicine to a new level.

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.

The internet? Knock it off with the Al Gore thing. First, he was misquoted, so your playing the fool by repeating it. Second - it was a government invention. Then it was improved by hobbists, academics, and enthusiasts. Corporate America moved in when they say money to be made. Capitalists are followers, not leaders.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Surprise, surprise, but the system that rewards innovation, invention and innovators who apply their personal (*individual*) effort and creativity toward the creation of new things has heads and shoulders MORE such inventions under its belt than the system which represses and suppresses.

Now eliminate every 20th century invention that wasn't a byproduct of the military or NASA. OK, that's most stuff with semiconductors or lasers. That's also alot of aeronautic and medical technology. All of it a result of the government.

Now eliminate the television. In fact, RCA used its governmental influence to sit on the damn thing while the inventor's patents ran out less it interfere with RCA's lucrative radio business. Looks like the only time the government is a treat to innovation is when corporate America wants to stifle innovation because - as I argued earlier - capitalism is driven by profit. When innovation interferes with profit, innovation foes under capitalism.

Now get rid of most vaccines, which were developed under pubic health initiatives or in academic settings. Why? No profit in vaccines - look at the ridiculous lengths to which the government goes to make sure the private sector produces vaccines in sufficient quantity. A public vaccine factory would prove more efficient.

So what has the private sector really contributed on its own with no government or academic assistance? Not much ...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I'll grant that war is caused by the aquisistion of resources dating back to the earliest conflicts. Slaves, women, food, goods etc. Don't lay that at the feet of capitalism though. Lay that at the feet of human nature. A human nature that naturally goes counter to giving itself to the larger mass collective.

How so?

How many men have given themselves in the name of the state to die in the wars of the state? And what is the satte but a mass collective, specially the modern nation-state?

The fact that man is sentient means with man anything is possibe.

[Velociryx]

/me wonders if GePap has ever heard the term "corporate culture." Probably not, given the singular definition of culture he seems to want to apply.


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).

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 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=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The fact that man is sentient means that man will be looking out for his own interests first and foremost.

Most of the of the wars of state that you mnetion come down to leaders of nation states acting in self interest.

The me first nature of man will never be subverted no matter how much brain washing and re-education. This is the primary reason communism can never take hold. A singel generation of brain washed communist idealists may hold sway but sooner or later man's baser nature will undo all the grand glorious conditionings. Think of it like entropy. In the end the most random natural state will be the outcome.

Capitalsim is that state that man's inherent nature gravitates towards. It rewards the individual and afterall we all gravitate toward what's in it for the ME.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


But the point is that resources are allocated through directives. Estimation what each person will consume is nearly impossible. The more people who exist within that system, the larger the difference there will be between what people need and what is being given. Your resources are not longer being allocated efficiently. There is also a limited amount of resources because even in communist countries, money doesn't grow on trees.
The government needs to continue funding factories who churn out forks even if everyone has all the forks they need. They no longer have enough money to fund say a toilet paper factory, and people want more toilet paper then there is available. Now they are forced to use bark, or pinecones.

Absurd. Did you really think about this? Why not just produce the same amount of toilet paper that we produce now? As the population increases we can produce more accordingly.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I'll grant that war is caused by the aquisistion of resources dating back to the earliest conflicts. Slaves, women, food, goods etc. Don't lay that at the feet of capitalism though. Lay that at the feet of human nature. A human nature that naturally goes counter to giving itself to the larger mass collective.

This is just your social conditioning. Remove your thinking from it. Capitalism isn't just the best system because they told you it was.

[Velociryx]

Og: That's exactly right! Communism is the best system because, although it has never quite worked out, KID told you it was!

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

I mean some of the things that people believe about the two systems are just ridiculous. War is caused because of competition for resources. Og realizes that but doesn't make the connection with capitalism which is all about competition for resources.

[Velociryx]

Oh! Forgot to add one more point!

It has been argued here (by folks arguing FOR the communist side, I might add) that equal outcomes ARE demanded. I'll put it behind me as soon as your side stops arguing the point....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Kid: Given that capitalism is relatively new to human history, how then, would you explain all wars fought prior to its existence? Can't be capitalism's fault, since ummm....it wasn't even a glimmer in anybody's eye, but hey! Sure, let's blame every war from the stone ages on up on capitalism!

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I realize very well that the desire to aquire resources power glory(a form of immortality) are root causes for war.

My point though is that regardless of government or economic structure it is inherent to man innate nature. Capitialism or for that matter communism is no more the cause of death than the weapons used to cause death. The motives are the real cause and unfortunately the motives are part and parcel of human nature. Any further discussions laying the balme on a form of governement is specious IMO.

My greater point is once you realize the nature of man, you realize the fallacy of sustained communal behavior as it will allways degenerate into something more aligned with human nature. It just so happens that capitalism is musch more aligned with human nature than is communism.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I realize very well that the desire to aquire resources power glory(a form of immortality) are root causes for war.

My point though is that regardless of government or economic structure it is inherent to man innate nature. Capitialism or for that matter communism is no more the cause of death than the weapons used to cause death. The motives are the real cause and unfortunately the motives are part and parcel of human nature. Any further discussions laying the balme on a form of governement is specious IMO.

My greater point is once you realize the nature of man, you realize the fallacy of sustained communal behavior as it will allways degenerate into something more aligned with human nature. It just so happens that capitalism is musch more aligned with human nature than is communism.

Come now. Human beings are conditioned by the social system that they live in. If we stop teaching people to compete for resources it follows that the world will be more peacefull.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I realize very well that the desire to aquire resources power glory(a form of immortality) are root causes for war.

My point though is that regardless of government or economic structure it is inherent to man innate nature. Capitialism or for that matter communism is no more the cause of death than the weapons used to cause death. The motives are the real cause and unfortunately the motives are part and parcel of human nature. Any further discussions laying the balme on a form of governement is specious IMO.

My greater point is once you realize the nature of man, you realize the fallacy of sustained communal behavior as it will allways degenerate into something more aligned with human nature. It just so happens that capitalism is musch more aligned with human nature than is communism.

A good short post that cuts to the meat of the matter.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I have a tremendous difficulty believing inthe concept of social evolution. The idea that man is evolving socially so that his motives for self gratification and a sense of immortality become secondary to advancement of a large communal whole to me is way too far fetched.

This would necessitate a fundamental change to man. And if one follows the arguements of nature vs. nuture would entail some form of change to the nature of man. Since we're talking a matter of a generation or two I see no reason to think that man will have magically evolved into a hive like mentality. Simple re-eduation (nurture) won't do and if it does will at best be a one generational effect.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Come now. Human beings are conditioned by the social system that they live in. If we stop teaching people to compete for resources it follows that the world will be more peacefull.

Peaceful people will be at a competitive disadvantage against reasonably violent people. This is how this whole thing started. I think you give too much power to environment in this instance, and not enough to our selfish genes. Economics and politics resonate on a very base level for human beings, where greed, envy, pride and fear are the main players.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Come now. Human beings are conditioned by the social system that they live in. If we stop teaching people to compete for resources it follows that the world will be more peacefull.

A nature verses nurture arguement if there ever was one.

I suggest you really look at human nature. Raise a kid very enlightening.

Slef interests are the first thing we either learn or are born with.

No amount of conditioning to overcome the self first mindset will truly hold.