Babylon and on - the new capitalism/communism thread

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
Kid: "Oh, and I hate those pigdog capitalists."

Which is precisely why I'm against it - Communism is an ideology of hate, for haters.

Not really. My hate is not much different from that of a Democrat. I hate the greed of capitalism and the indifference towards suffering. I know many Democrats that have the same hatred.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Again Kid, I'm arguing the side of the system that is in place and working right now. It doesn't fall to me to prove the current system is working, cos we'd not be having this conversation if it wasn't.

Since you, member of the glorious revolution, want to tear down the system, it *does* however, fall to you to explain why allowing the the individual to be subverted is superior to what we have now.

How can we argue about social science when you don't have a social model though?

[JohnT]

Hate is hate, Kid.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
Hate is hate, Kid.

Oh, so you are mad because poor people and the people who sympathized with them hate you. You are in control of that. All you have to do is stop the policies that cause them to hate you.

[Velociryx]

Kid, I'm not asking for an "argument on social science," I am asking why you believe that subverting the individual is superior to allowing, recognizing, and celebrating the individual.

-=Vel=-

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Velociryx
1) What's up with the whole "group before individual" thing? Sounds like it's a wierd cross between an ant farm and the borg collective to me. Are you guys aware that societies exist to serve those in them, and not the other way around? Why should we switch that, and make individuals exist to serve the state (or "common good" or "whole group" which are some other phrasings I've heard from your camp). Why is that superior to letting folks be....folks?

IMHO (and I only speak for myself), a group cannot be cohesive and productive without acknowledged rules, and something to watch if these rules are respected. I.E, the "invisible hand" doesn't exist. As the group becomes bigger, these rules have to become more complex, and making them / anforcing them become full-time jobs.
Saying that "the group comes before the indivudal" means that I expect people to abide by these rules (of course, provided they took part in the decision process), to avoid chaos to arise. To me, saying "the individual before the group" is an extremlyly libertarian idea, which means "every individual can do whatever he pleases and to hell with the others or the cohesion of the group".
I don't think anybody here supports the idea of letting rapists do their ugly hobby, or letting serial killers continue their job in name of these criminals' personal freedom. By doing so, you deem the group as more important as these individuals.

If you mean : "using an individual as an expandable resource to save the group", I think this idea should be approached with caution, and every situation where it occurs should be judge indivdually.
I think the survival of the whole group is more important than the survival of an individual belonging to it. That's a common conception in the army, where people are often sent to buy time for the rest of their unit, and too bad for these individuals.
However, except in situations where the survival of many is jeopardized if there is not the sacrifice of a few, I don't think people should be physically sacrificed for the group at all. However, I have no problem with "using" some people more than the others, if it doesn't mean their situation becoming dire. I mean : I have no problem with taxing the rich, with demanding more efficiency to the educated, etc. That's because they have the potential to offer more to the group than other individuals.
Borg Collective ? Hardly... That's what is happening in about every developed country of this planet, at the time we are speaking.

2) How will you prevent a dictatorial a$$ from siezing power when the "glorious revolution" comes. Isn't that what's happened in every other communist experiment that's been tried. So, if you're going to try it again, what will you do differently to ensure that it doesn't happen? Or, do you not really care that it'll happen?

I do care, and I actually think that every revolution can only result in a dictatorial takeover. That's because revolutions are fought by organized revolutionary armies, which can hope winning only when strongly hierarchised (the Spanish Civil war shows us the inefficiency of a "democratic" army). The military leaders have no reason to step back once the revolution is over, especially since the population must give a significant effort to rebuild what has been destroyed.
After that, I fail to see how the leaders will give up their power. People are people, and a guy used to have absolute power won't give it back, unless he's a saint of some sort.
That's why I believe socialism should come from progressive change within the democratic frame, rather than from a bloody revolution.

3) Are the party bosses in the new communist regieme gonna have all the perks they had in the old one? If so, isn't that just a shade umm....contradictory. Workin' man's party and all that?

It depends on how the communist regime is established. If it is established in a democratic fashion, there is no reason that the bosses get absolute power, especially since most supporters will be extremely wary of any attempt.
If it is established through violence, history will repeat itself over.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid, I'm not asking for an "argument on social science," I am asking why you believe that subverting the individual is superior to allowing, recognizing, and celebrating the individual.

-=Vel=-

Because you haven't shown me how individualism promotes the higher good.

[Velociryx]

Good points, Spiffor, and we agree on several of them.

The society I live in now has acknowledged rules, and a force that ensures those rules are enforced.

We have this while maintaining strong support of the individual.

What I see in the proposals being fronted here, however, would very definitely law down rules (new rules, obviously, else there would be little point in the revolution), and very definitely enforce them....and then they'd go a step further. Collectivization, by definitition, is placing the individual in the service of the society, and not the other way around (societies did not exist before individuals grouped together and created them....thus we see that the individual "trumps" society in this regard....[i]societies exist to serve the individuals that make up the population....not the other way around[i/].

But in the proposals I'm seeing, it IS the other way around. The individual is unimportant. That works in the army, sure (and is necessary), but do you want to "live" in the army?

I also agree that a "blood revolution" to enact communism will result in the very same (predictable) totalitarian state that it has every other time it has been tried. So my question there is....since it is unlikely in the extreme that communists will be able to convince large numbers of wealthy people to voluntarialy give up their posessions for the "good of the group" is it not also unlikely in the extreme that a peaceful means of instituting the new system can be found?

Which means that blood-letting is the only alternative, and that in turn means....same old story?

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Kid, so your entire argument is to be based on what I can tell you about individualism? Which implies then, that you don't have one at this time?

Thought so.

-=Vel=-

[Garth Vader]

I don't have a huge amount of time for this, but a few points.

Vel: About the group before the individual thing. I believe the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. In work terms, a team of people working well together can do more and better work than a bunch of people covering their ass and trying to get ahead.

If this philosophy was adopted by the vast majority that would take care of the evil dictator problem. Small groups are able to exert control because of the willingness of many people to accept benefit to themselves which will harm many others.

I don't see this taking hold any time soon because selfishness is rather ingrained in us. But that's a difference in what I'd like to see happen, and what I think will happen

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Oh, so you are mad because poor people and the people who sympathized with them hate you. You are in control of that. All you have to do is stop the policies that cause them to hate you.

Oh, please, stop projecting.

I do appreciate, however, your implied agreement with my statement that Communism is a haters theology. Thanks!

[Velociryx]

Garth: I agree. The whole certainly can be greater than the sum of its parts. And when does that happen? It happens when we recognize that it's the "parts" that make that happen.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts precisely BECAUSE we acknowledge the parts.

When we stop doing that, we get "group-think" which has been demonstrated as an unmitigated disaster time and time again. It's the classic: All of us are dumber than one of us line.

You can't just force six people in lab coats into a room and tell them to invent something, and expect miracles, but if you take six individual scientists, each with their own drives, desires, and ambitions, and get them jazzed about a particular thing, you get....magic.

So my question remains, for any communist who would like to answer it. It seems to me that (based on what I've read here, in these discussions) that Communism would subvert the individual (it must, to succeed), how specifically, is that better than allowing individualism to flourish, given the rampant creativity and productivity we have seen that it can bring?

-=Vel=-

[JohnT]

They don't care about creativity, Vel, they care about control. After all, nobody is smart enough to run their own lives, but they are smart enough to run the lives of others.

[Garth Vader]

You can't just force six people in lab coats into a room and tell them to invent something, and expect miracles, but if you take six individual scientists, each with their own drives, desires, and ambitions, and get them jazzed about a particular thing, you get....magic.


If those scientists respect the group you get magic. If one decides he should get all the glory (and money) and subverts the group effort while engaging in his own projects on the side then you don't get magic.

There is a difference in people putting the group first and a "group-think" mob mentality.

[DAVOUT]

The western world has some nice ways to work for the group, for the humankind, that must be recognized and celebrated. Two examples :

- fundamental research (hubble, great accelerators, genome) mobilize immense amounts of money and talent, and is really done for the good of humankind;
- museums and everything done for the protection of the history of man is also an accomplisment for the good of all men on earth.

Individualism has its own limits which make that it does not preclude the work of many for the good of the group.