First Communist Interfactional (Cominfac)

[Method]

Originally posted by Drogue
I think the whole of the UoP or PUT (whatever you wish to call it) is in hiding. They seem to be keeping very much to remselves at the moment

yes, that's what The Gorilla wants you to think

[Hercules]

I generally refuse to get caught up in 'capitalism v socialism ' debates because there is seemingly enough evidence and counter evidence for each side to keep attacking the other, without having to consider a third possibility and because to do so,that would be loss of face.

Yet to my view there are other ways to describe the patterns of human behaviour and power in the world.

To reduce world politics and political dynamic to simple capitalist v socialist diatribe is an injustice to the diversity of human political thinking.

Yes the thread, referred to was funny at the time, but also a severe turn off for those not doing politics/ political theory. If I remember participation in the DG dropped sharply.

I also remember that quite innocent threads on non controversial items suddenly became embroiled in Cap/Soc debates.

So yeah, if you want to have a debate, do it somewhere off centre and keep to your own discussion threads, without hijacking. (I suppose that was what Gnool was attempting here).

Remember the masters of hijacking are the pirates, so don't get us started.

[Nubclear]

[GeneralTacticus]

Originally posted by Jamski
@ Drogue : I'm glad you used all those wink smilies. Yes - it was a deliberate troll to start some debate As I argued (at great and boring length) in the old CCCP thread that it was a logical imposiblility to be "more free" or "less free" - one is either free, or one is not - my proposal that "one is less free in a Free Market, than in a Planned economy" is obviously rubbish.

Actually, as I recall, you did concede that it was possible to be "closer to freedom" or "further from freedom"; you only objected to the phrase "more free" on semantic grounds, and the only reason I preferred to use that phrase was that it's the commonly used one; it makes no difference to the actual meaning.

Oh, and I still don't think that freedom is actually indivisible, if for no other reason than because if one does accept it as such, then one is not free under any circumstances and hence, logicially speaking, there's no difference between the freest democracy and the most vicious dictatorship.

[Frankychan]

Laissez-faire markets are bull. Most of the men "at the top" are only in it to make a buck and to h*** with the rest of the world. One just has to take a long look at all the corporate executives in America today to see the type of greed that free-market economy's fester (sorry to beat a dead horse, but it's the most prevalent example).

Laissez-faire= Planned=

[GeneralTacticus]

Originally posted by Frankychan
Laissez-faire markets are bull. Most of the men "at the top" are only in it to make a buck and to h*** with the rest of the world. One just has to take a long look at all the corporate executives in America today to see the type of greed that free-market economy's fester (sorry to beat a dead horse, but it's the most prevalent example).

Laissez-faire= Planned=

Maybe you ought to go take a look at the Brezhenevs in the USSR and the kind of sh*t they got up to before attacking free markets for the same thing. It would be interesting to compare the figures for how much communist apparatchiks have stolen in Planned economies vs. how much corrupt CEOs have stolen in capitalist ones...

[Frankychan]

I'm not saying that Planned is without faults, because I know it is. Regardless, I think Planned economics can be a better system IF the people in charge of running it have an altruistic nature. All this ulterior motive stuff just isn't worth it, IMHO.

But when you have some body whose see's how much money they can make through illicit means, no matter what type of system they fall under, you're going to have corruption of some sort. I'm still a supporter of planned (or for the less radical, semi-Planned) economies.

(good discussion btw )

[Mr. President]

Planned economics isn't so good if you're the guy in the factory job that would be unnecessary if you used modern technology and didn't insist on 100% employment.

[GeneralTacticus]

Originally posted by Frankychan
I'm not saying that Planned is without faults, because I know it is. Regardless, I think Planned economics can be a better system IF the people in charge of running it have an altruistic nature. All this ulterior motive stuff just isn't worth it, IMHO.

Well, even without going into the utter idiocy of constructing a system which will only work if the people at the top are nice and stay that way... Planned remains an inferior system because there's no effective means for demand and supply to interact. If everything is monopolized (and that's what happens under Planned), then the guys at the top produce X number of product Y, but they have no real way of knowing if they produced to much or too little, or how much they should have produced. Moreover, there's no real reason for them to do so except a sense of duty, and like I said, it's plain idiocy to create a system which will work only if the people at the top make the effort to keep it running, more so if they've got no particular reason to.

But when you have some body whose see's how much money they can make through illicit means, no matter what type of system they fall under, you're going to have corruption of some sort. I'm still a supporter of planned (or for the less radical, semi-Planned) economies.

(good discussion btw )

Well, naturally corruption is going to occur no matter what system you're using, but a Planned economy lends itself to corruption with extraordinary efficiency, as it effectively centralizes all the economic decision-making into watever body does the planning, and leaves the bureaucrats with no real incentive to actually do do their jobs efficiently (except the threat of being sacked by your bosses, but they don't have any more reason to do their jobs well than their subordinates do).

[Gnool]

"absolute power corrupts absolutely" - a small amount of people with a lot of money is bad. This applies for both free market economies (where the few at the top of a corporation have lots of money, and money is power, therefore they have lots of power and are dangerous) and Soviet-style planned economies (where an elite few are in charge of the entire economy, and when you throw a police state in to boot you get far too much power in the hands of far too many). The "true" idea of socialism sees socialism as "economic democracy", where "the people" control the economy, either directly or through a representative system. We at the Hive strive for true socialism, and that's what makes us so glorious.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Jamski
However - on the same grounds one can argue that it is not possible for either Planned or FM to be more or less free than one another. This demonstrates the inaccuracy of the name "Free Market" - when what is meant is "Deregulated Market"

Exactly. Free Market does not state explicitly that the people are free, it states that the market ios free. There may be no mroe or less free, but the market itself is free under FM, and not under Planned, where it is controlled. Not saying one is better than the other (I think we all know which one that is ) but a Free Market means that the market is Free, and Planned means that the market is controlled, or Planned. If you remove the regulations of the people, then the people becpme free. If you remove the regulations of the market, then the market becomes free. Thus a deregulated market is a free market

All hail the market GooglieGod



Whoes YEC?

[GeneralTacticus]

Whoes YEC?

A YEC is a Young Earth Creationist - one of those people who think that Genesis is literally correct and that any contrary evidence must have been planted by God to confuse us (or by the devil, or invented by scientists who want to destroy Christianity).

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Gnool
The "true" idea of socialism sees socialism as "economic democracy", where "the people" control the economy, either directly

And that my friends, is also a 'true' free market. Where the people control the market directly. However FM tends towards corporatism, and Socialism tends towards autocratic communism

Unless of course, you join the CyCon, where the uber-rational and ultra-intelligent brains of ours bypass all those human foibles and means we get a true economic democracy. Whether running FM or Planned, we reach the paradigm

[Gnool]

I would equate free market economics with economic anarchism than democracy. Democracy means that any decisions are made with the approval of the majority of the people. By economic democracy I mean something like "ok we've got a GDP of $123 billion, how should we spend it" and getting everyone to decide how they want it spent, rather than having the government spend their share, microsoft spending their share, the small business down the road spending their share etc.

To put it simply - Capitalism = money being controlled on an individual level. Socialism = money being controlled on a "collective" level.

[Jamski]

Actually, as I recall, you did concede that it was possible to be "closer to freedom" or "further from freedom"; you only objected to the phrase "more free" on semantic grounds, and the only reason I preferred to use that phrase was that it's the commonly used one; it makes no difference to the actual meaning.

Let's run round the argument again for the "benefit" of new readers....

GeneralTacticus - Makes a comparison that something is "more free"
Jamski - Objects that it is not possible to be "more free"
GT - Yes it is.
Jam - No its not, one is either free, or one is not.
GT - If I was in prison, and then released, I would be "more free than before"
Archaic - OWNED!!!!!!!!
Jam - I disagree. Freedom is a binary function, one is either free, or one is not free. One should say "closer to freedom" or "further from freedom"
GT - OK, maybe you're right, but this is just a semantic argument.
Jam - Yes, but semantics are important.
GT - I was using the common expression, "more free" to mean "closer to freedom" - that's the sense in which everyone uses it. Everyone say's that the glass is either half full or half empty.
Jam - But I say that the glass is either full or it is empty or it is closer or further from one of these states.
GT - But that's just you being pedantic and semantic.
Jam - True, but these things are important to me, to make sure we are actually discussing the same thing, and that we mean the same things by our words
GT - Whatever, it has the same meaning whatever words you use. OK, let's actually get on with this disussion.... whatever it was about
Jam - Well, actually it doesn't, but......but let's get on shall we.

That was about it, in short, if I recall correctly. GT?

-Jam