Babylon and on - the new capitalism/communism thread

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Serb

1) It's Bullsh!t.
2) Ticonderoga is 25 years ahead of Sovremenny? Yeah, right, and I have a bridge to sell.
3) Russian ships of Kirov class is 20-25 years ahead of any American ship.
4) Have a nice day.

MtG was trying to slip one past us again Good job Serb.

[DinoDoc]

When it comes to someone questioning Russia, Serb is a less than truthful source of information.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx

PS to Kid: I'm hurt... No comments to my recent stuff....



-V.

The innovation or the authoritarionism. Innovation is no longer too important, and authoritarianism depends on the strength of your enemy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
Hell, he still hasn't explained to me how he reconciles the dichotomy of his decision to change from being a "socially useful" teacher to being a "social leech" (Accountant) with his beliefs. Does it keep him up at night?

He claimed that it was because teaching was bad for him... but Kid, what does that matter? According to you, societal needs must come at the expense of your individuality, but you made an individual choice that is very arguably not beneficial to society, and in fact, perpetuates that which you claim to loathe.

It's all in how they act, Vel. They can write and write all they want to, but as long as they are looking for those Citibank contracts and Accounting positions, we win by default.

No John. Societal need do not come at the expense of individuality. Only Individuality, the way some people define it, comes at the expense of societal needs. I find it disgusting that people want to consume more and more and hoard more and more money while people are suffering. I don't really call that Individualism. That's just greed. No, I don't feel guilty for quiting teaching. It was making me very unhappy, and being a rational human being, I quit.

[Velociryx]

Innovation is no longer too important? I can't wait to hear the reasoning behind this one!

Authoritarianism is required by the system you propose for the following reasons:

1) Centralized control NEEDS authoritarianism to maintain its position (without jackboots, you won't stay in power)

2) "Enemies" would have to include not only foriegn governments, but anyone who did not chant the party mantra with a sufficient amount of zeal (need more jackboots to keep tabs on them....the subversive bastards!), and/or anyone who dared persue capitalist enterprises (still more jackboots needed to watch the exploitive bastards!).

The communist state will never have a shortage of enemies, for even if it was globalized, the enemies would be within....

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx


Innovation is no longer too important? I can't wait to hear the reasoning behind this one!

Authoritarianism is required by the system you propose for the following reasons:

1) Centralized control NEEDS authoritarianism to maintain its position (without jackboots, you won't stay in power)

2) "Enemies" would have to include not only foriegn governments, but anyone who did not chant the party mantra with a sufficient amount of zeal (need more jackboots to keep tabs on them....the subversive bastards!), and/or anyone who dared persue capitalist enterprises (still more jackboots needed to watch the exploitive bastards!).

The communist state will never have a shortage of enemies, for even if it was globalized, the enemies would be within....

-=Vel=-

I'll have to get back to this later. I have to do some stuff.

I'll just say real quick that innovation is very important for capitalism, but that it doesn't add to the benefit of regular people as much as you claim that it does. Furthermore, it causes most of the problems with capitalism. And last, the level of technological advancement is already sufficient to make the people of the world much happier if they were to recieve the full benefits of it than they would be if they continued under capitalism as it continually denied them resources to automate more work.

[Velociryx]

It's funny, but that's what people were saying in the late 1890's. Science had pretty well been tapped out. Nothing of interest left to discover or invent.

Uh huh.

A bit of advice: Don't bet your bottom dollar on that (it would be "unlucky" )

As to societal needs coming at the expense of (or not) the individual: In the theory you are touting, oh yes it does!

Time and time again we are told that individual examples of success and failures do not count (thus, if the experiences themselves do not count, then neither do the individuals who had them). We must forget the individual, and look at the "whole group." Whatever is best for the whole group, that's what we do (which is the REASON for the whole wealth re-distribution that STARTS your freakin' revolution, remember? What about the individuals you take from? They don't count! Why not? Because it's not "about" the individual!

-=Vel=-

[JohnT]

"I'll just say real quick that innovation is very important for capitalism, but that it doesn't add to the benefit of regular people as much as you claim that it does."

So says the man posting on a message board in an internet forum (based on a commercially released series of games) using a personal computer.

This post wins the DoublePlusGood UnSpeak Award of the Day!

[Velociryx]

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
A bit of advice: Don't bet your bottom dollar on that (it would be "unlucky" )

Don't have an argument do you? The world unemployment rate is higher than it's ever been. The underemployment rate (people with part-time jobs who want full-time jobs) in the US is higher than it's ever been. How would you like to bet that both increase?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
So says the man posting on a message board in an internet forum (based on a commercially released series of games) using a personal computer.

Providing internet service to a few is not a comparable goal with the goal of providing the basic needs of everyone. That's not to say that we couldn't provide internet service to the entire world.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
When it comes to someone questioning Russia, Serb is a less than truthful source of information.

What do I care? The 'fact' is pointless anyway.

[JohnT]

Well, that does it. I am withdrawing from this conversation.

When one starts lying (as opposed to just slanting the debate and figures to fit their needs, something we all do), there is no need to discuss this anymore.

The Department of Labor doesn't have an official
underemployment category at stats.bls.gov, but I assume you mean "People who work Part Time for Economic Reasons."

According to their site, the underemployment figures (total number of persons) for the US (as of May 2003) was 70% of what it was just a decade ago.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost

[Velociryx]

John....you know we're not supposed to argue from the FACTS! (they'll be ignored anyway! )

Nahhh, don't withdraw from the debate, just....take it in stride, you know?

They're arguing for a dead horse that's been so severely beaten the various times it's been trotted out that it's almost embarassing. How can we lose?

-=Vel=-

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'll have to get back to this later. I have to do some stuff.

I'll just say real quick that innovation is very important for capitalism, but that it doesn't add to the benefit of regular people as much as you claim that it does. Furthermore, it causes most of the problems with capitalism. And last, the level of technological advancement is already sufficient to make the people of the world much happier if they were to recieve the full benefits of it than they would be if they continued under capitalism as it continually denied them resources to automate more work.

Well this looks like an interesting debate and I would like to join it if you guys dont mind, of course I would be on the capitalist side of the debate.

Innovation is needed as much today as it was a 100 years ago. To say that we can switch to communism because we have disscovered most of the things their is to disscover is silly. Many people have been proven wrong time and time again on this matter.

You also think that communism would be able to give everyone the benefits of our current technology. Look at communist countries now in the world. Are they able to give their people all of the benefits that come from current technology? No. Most of these countries are way behind the rest of the world. Most of their people live in provety while the party elite do not. The only one that comes close is China, but they allow private bussiness to exist and allow some capitalism in their nation. That is the only reason they are better then the rest of the communist countries arround the world.

Under the Soviet Union people suffered shortages on almost everything that they needed. I am sorry to say this to you but communism has already failed at doing what you say communism could do. If you really want to help the poor and opressed of the world, what you need is to get people to be more giving and willing to help 3 world countries devolope their lands and end the civil wars that tear apart their nations. Also you would have to get the people living in these 3rd world countries to stop these civil wars and other types of unrest that occurs there everyday. Communism would never be able to do this.