Babylon and on - the new capitalism/communism thread

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
No, the ball is not in my court to disprove it, Kid, because it won't happen. It's so far beyond the realm of possibility that it's.....right up there with functioning, flourishing Communism, actually....

Don't feel up to tackling my "authoritarian" posts tonight, eh? 'k....

-=Vel=-

I'll do yours if you do mine

[Velociryx]

Oh, and by the way....what will you think if your unemployment predictions for this decade don't happen? My guess is that it will not dampen the fervor of your beliefs in the slightest....we just "got lucky" is all, yes?

And btw, the ultimate irony (getting back to my authoritarian posts for a moment) is that Marx could not have written what he wrote in a place that squelched the individual. He NEEDED that sort of environment to come up with what he came up with, and his own social model would firmly put the brakes on any further such thinking (as it would threaten the official party dogma).

Since innovation stems from free, creative thinking, your communist utopia will have to rely on external populations (ones that are not under the communist thumb) for ideas and innovation. Some of it can come by pointing a gun at the scientists and ordering them to create or face death, yes, but as we have seen with the latest and greatest soviet technology, it runs 2-3 decades behind where we are, and that's probably a good indicator.

If the system were ever made global, and there were no free-thinking, individualistic societies to draw from after the fact, the whole system could easily sink into a completely non-innovative quagmire.

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

You wouldn't know eveidence if it hit you in the face.

Because you spouting off is somehow 'evidence'? Yeah, someone asks you for evidence and you don't even produce a cite. I think he caught you red handed.

The worse situation would be if everyone studied to get the same marketable skills.

Sorry, we don't have communism yet . There is more than one set of marketable skills in our capitalism. Unless you think everyone is going to major in every one of Engineering, Chemistry, Pre-Med, Economics, Mathamatics, etc, etc.

[Velociryx]

Kid, again, the system I'm arguing for is working right now. Wanna see proof? Look out your window.

I cannot do the same thing for the system you are arguing for, which means that some kind of evidence beyond "trust us, it's magic, it'll be fine" is required, don't you think?

Your platform reminds me strangely of ex-president Bush's election platform when he was running against Clinton.

Just elect me President because....well, because! We'll....handle stuff as it comes up....don't worry about how.

And he lost.....surprise?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid, again, the system I'm arguing for is working right now. Wanna see proof? Look out your window.

But it's not working. You're assuming that it's very easy for a displaced worker to achieve the status that they once held. More often than no they end up working for Wal-Mart. Now it's even getting hard to find work there. At K-Mart I noticed that they have a self-check out registar. You scan your own stuff and slide your credit card. No clerk needed.

Again, the system may be working for you right now, but not overall. You just don't want to look at what is happening.

[Imran Siddiqui]

At K-Mart I noticed that they have a self-check out registar. You scan your own stuff and slide your credit card. No clerk needed.

And this is a bad thing .

Luddite..

(Btw, what happens when those things break down? Don't you need to hire people to take care of them... *gasp* new, different, jobs?)

It seems like people have done very well, very, very well, with the advent of new technology. I don't know anyone that would rather live in 1900 with more 'labor intensive' industries dominating.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

At K-Mart I noticed that they have a self-check out registar. You scan your own stuff and slide your credit card. No clerk needed.

And this is a bad thing .

Luddite..

(Btw, what happens when those things break down? Don't you need to hire people to take care of them... *gasp* new, different, jobs?)

Imran, why would they put these things in if it was going to cost them more?

[Imran Siddiqui]

When did I ever say it was going to cost them MORE? You need a reading comprehension lesson, boy? (looks like MtG was totally right on that account)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
When did I ever say it was going to cost them MORE? You need a reading comprehension lesson, boy? (looks like MtG was totally right on that account)

The problem is that you guys are not aware of the consequences of the things that you are saying.

Why bring up the point about labor being needed to fix the equipment when there will be a net loss in jobs?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why bring up the point about labor being needed to fix the equipment when there will be a net loss in jobs?

Because the lost jobs will be unefficient, unskilled workers. The gained jobs will be skilled, efficient workers. It is the continuing process of making our economy more and more efficient.

The unskilled workers can easily get another job working for another minimum wage employer, of which there are plenty.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The unskilled workers can easily get another job working for another minimum wage employer, of which there are plenty.

That's right. There are plenty of minimum wage jobs. Too bad high paying jobs are harder to come by

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The problem is that you guys are not aware of the consequences of the things that you are saying.

Why bring up the point about labor being needed to fix the equipment when there will be a net loss in jobs?

Why bring up the points you have been making when the past 300 years of industrial development have shown the lie to your words?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kidicious


That's right. There are plenty of minimum wage jobs. Too bad high paying jobs are harder to come by

See above re: education, experience, desire.

[GePap]

Howdy all:

First, ot JohnT's definition. There is a fundamanetal incompleteness to the second definition given, due to the fact that Marxist-Leninism was not the only form of communism out there, nor was orthodox marxism the same as Marxist-Leninism. Under JohnT's .2 def., Maoist could not be called Communism (and thus What is china?)

And what about part 1? I don;t see many of the "defenders of capitalism" tackling it: instead you stick to attacks (justified) agains the creations of marixst-Leninist ideology.

As for Capitalism and the individual: there is a hitch in this folks: Capitalism thrives if individual are free to chose, that is true, but (as I have said all time before) the market is just a means to an end, and that end is the creation of more wealth. What actually happens to individuals in a capitalist system is utterly immaterial. Capitalism folks is the ultimate example of a system meant to benefit the whole without regard to the individual. Who cares if you (a single human being) is unemployed, hungry, dying of disease, whatever..as long as your actions and those of others conform to market ideology, the whole will get wealthier, the whole benefits.

[cinch]

These arguments always seem to spiral in the strangest directions.

The way I see it: Capitalism is flawed, but functional. Communism is ideal, but impractical. Is either one better than the other? I can't say for sure. I hold allegiance to neither.

But I can say that, for all the praise of individuality and self-determination by capitalists, they sure don't seem to take into account the exploitation of overseas workers. Many of these workers live under communist or dictatorial regimes, yet they are vital to the functioning of Western capitalism today. If you take away those workers, I'd argue that the Western economy and way of life would take a turn for the worse.


Capitalism works perfectly if the goal is to reward those who are already advantaged (and I don't even mean millionaires, I'm talking just anyone who's lucky enough to live in the developed world). But that's not the goal of capitalism; the goal of capitalism is to reward those who deserve it, those who work the hardest. And how often to Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino, etc. labourers get rewarded? A pay raise? A promotion? The vast, vast majority don't. They work 12 hours a day for 50 cents, and if they don't work hard enough, they will suffer for it.

How do these people fit in to the ideal capitalist's world?

Secondary point: As for all the ingenuity/technology stuff: I agree that capitalism is much more conducive to technological expansion and progression, but I have to ask myself, at what point does the importance of technology surpass that of humanity? I'm all for capitalism, but I have to admit that my conscience leads me to feel empathy for the foreign workers and slaves, who are so integral to our globalised supereconomy, yet have a quality of life that a Canadian/American/British/etc. vagrant would be ashamed to call his own.