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.

[Kidlicious]

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.

[Kidlicious]

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

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=-

[Kidlicious]

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=-