Babylon and on - the new capitalism/communism thread

[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=-