Rage against the Machine - Communism Vs. Capitalism (again!)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
INDIVIDUALS shape society where I live. Individuals define society where I live. Not the other way around.

Society sets rules for individuals to follow. If individuals follow these rules they benefit, if they don't they suffer. Individuals go about making rational decisions. True they are decisions, but the thing that you are failing to understand is that they are going about following the rules set by society.

[Velociryx]

Yep. Society sets the rules for individuals to follow, and that society is made up of....individuals. The individuals, each acting according to their own wishes, desires, and needs provide the framework for society to exist in any formalized way at all. Where do you think society gets the rules it lays down from? Mostly, they amount to formal codification of stuff that individuals are ALREADY DOING.....there's a shocking development. What doesn't happen is: there's not some secret Illuminatus that puts itself above society and "hands down" societal edicts, but that's what you'd like to see, isn't it. Let the new Uncle Joe tell you what's best for you. Heaven forbid you have to decide something on your own.

-=Vel=-

[cinch]

Vel:

INDIVIDUALS shape society where I live. Individuals define society where I live. Not the other way around.

Why must the two all be treated as mutually exclusive? Individuals shape society, and society, in turn, will shape them.

An example: If I was not in my family, my family would be different. It's shape would be altered. Accordingly, if I did not have my family, I would likely be a different person than I am today. My family has shaped me. I have shaped my family. We have shaped society, society will shape us. We ARE society.

"Capitalism only innovates when it is profitable to do so"... Which of course, explains why the Genome project occurred in a capitalist system, right? (and the Internet too). Yeah, I know, I know, they were funded by government research dollars. And the government GOT those research dollars from? Show of hands? Could it be.....taxing the fruits of the capitalist system? EUREKA!!

I don't see how you can't see any profit arising from the Genome project. Genetic Engineering is a field that'll soon be ripe for profitability. The governmentS (not just America, remember) funded the genome project perhaps partly because of the scientific community, but more likely because, once completed, it opens up a whole new area of medical technology and business.

[Velociryx]

Cinch: I agree....there is certainly some overlap. But there won't be if the communists get their way, because individuals who don't tow the party line are (have been, historically), made to disappear on a rather permanent basis. So, when the whole population is too scared OF society to do anything out of the ordinary (ie - that which might shape or change the existing mantra)....no one will! No one will dare!

And yes, I can see vast, vast potential from the genome project....eventually. First, we had to finish it. Then, we have to digest what it means. That's a long term project, but the fruits will be vast indeed. In time. It has already been argued on this thread, however, that the genome project was unattractive to capitalists because of the timeframe involved (big investment, no profits in the foreseeable future), which was why the government helped fund the effort (and they did). Isn't it interesting though, that the Genome project was not completed in the cozy, altruistic realm of the communists, but rather, funded by dollars generated from the capitalist system, and completed IN a capitalist system?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Yep. Society sets the rules for individuals to follow, and that society is made up of....individuals. The individuals, each acting according to their own wishes, desires, and needs provide the framework for society to exist in any formalized way at all. Where do you think society gets the rules it lays down from? Mostly, they amount to formal codification of stuff that individuals are ALREADY DOING.....there's a shocking development. What doesn't happen is: there's not some secret Illuminatus that puts itself above society and "hands down" societal edicts, but that's what you'd like to see, isn't it. Let the new Uncle Joe tell you what's best for you. Heaven forbid you have to decide something on your own.

-=Vel=-

Yes, in a democracy we all get to vote. But after the laws are passed we are required to follow the rules. Having an equal say is different from living by your own rules.

[Velociryx]

But what you are proposing is about as far from "democracy" as can be imagined.

A small group of people in charge of the economy (deciding what gets produced, how much it costs, where you can live, how you can live, etc), dictating terms to the rest "for the good of the group."

If you resist? Death or Gulag.

If you don't chant the party mantra with enough excitement and enthusiasm? Death or Gulag.

If you do as you are told? You get what the party bosses (in their infinite wisdom) feel is best for you.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
GePap: I don't buy into any particular philosophy, Locke included.

Your argument is people know what they know.....and that is an argument....how, exactly? ::shakes head:: Give me an argument with a trace of substance to it, and I'll reply, give me "we know what we're told or what we learn on our own" REALLY? How long did that take you to figure out, exactly? Stating the obvious does not a debate make. I could counter just as easily with "the sun will rise tomorrow." For all the substance that the former has, the latter is a perfectly valid answer. :rollseyes:

You seem to assume that choices come out of nowhere, that nothing informs them whatsoever: that evrything is independent of everything before it.

Stating the things that are obvious but never explored is crucial. Just because you "know of it" does not mean you understand it.

Lets take the examples of a cars first of all, in various ways. Lets sayI have a kid, and as he grows up i decide to home school him. While doing so I raise him in a place were cars are rare. I also decide to imprint into him the notion that cars are evil (not bad, evil). If I succeed, he will be very unlikely to want to buy a car even if he is in an economc situation in which a car would make the most sense for him, as a rationally chosing consumer. What decides whether he gets a car or not may be this instilled Moral value that cars are evil, even if that is a horribly inefficeint choice in his given position. While this example is extreme, it has general implications. Every choice has a consequence, but the question is, which matters most? The actual consequence that will be, or the imagined consequence in somebody's head? The latter takes precedent all the time: now maybe someone has a set of beliefs in which the first and the latter are the same: fine, great for them, but this is not true all the time, in fact, it is hardly true ever. And what forms the imagined consequece? The iformation you have aquired. And thus, HOW you come about gathering sucvh information becomes central to what choices you take, becuase that infromation forms the imagined consequence of each choice.

Lets take another matter: I think that in general, the more choices you have for any one decion, the less overall consequence to any one choice there is. Lets take a decision with artifically limited choices: that of mode of transport, car or train? Each choice has significant consequences to you, and everyone else. Now, lets say you choe car. The nest decision is the type of car. You have more choices now, but what type of car is less important than car or not. You chose a type, now you have to chose brands and models. Again, more choices, but less significance to it. Finally, you picked a model, now you get a choice of the minutiae, extras, colors. Again, more choices, less significance. Yet one of the least significant choices, vis a vi the notion of personal transport, the color of the outside of the thing, is one of the most valued customer choices of all. So in theory, I could easilly deny people a more actualy significant choice as long as I give them the illusion of them having a great choice by giving them a huge range of colors to chose from.

And as for the sinificant of individuals now and coming: Just with some basic market thinking, you can see why any individual is less imrpotant. Labor saving devices lower the demand for people with time, but we have more people all the time. Supply of people has outstripped demand, even if demand has kept growing. The "price" of any individual must go down. There is ano9ther notion, and to me its sort of paradoxical: if each individual has a huge range of choices, they have more power to annul or counteract the decision of any other individual. Lets say I want a nuclear power plant real badly, so i work real hard to design one and then get the capital to be able to build it. I chose a nice spot, buy the property and before I am about to begin, someone in the community finds out and a huge case of NIMBY breaks out. The town will now come together to undermine my desires because they contradict theirs. In the end, the decison will come in the courts, or at the ballot box. Either way, by giving each individual more choice, you set up the greater possiblity of a clash of choice, meaning that the importance of societal means of lessining conflict become MORE important, gain more power. In the end, the whole decides if my dream of a nuclear power plant will come true, not me, by decinding which set of notions and values it finds most important.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
But what you are proposing is about as far from "democracy" as can be imagined.

A small group of people in charge of the economy (deciding what gets produced, how much it costs, where you can live, how you can live, etc), dictating terms to the rest "for the good of the group."

You haven't been reading many of the posts obviously. I'm not talking about elitism. I don't think anybody is. We are already dictated the terms by society. We are dictated the terms with every form of govt. We have to change the terms as technology and world events affect us so that the terms will continue to benefits us. That is the only role that we play as individuals working within the society.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Berzerker
But I'm getting a profit from him. Before he offered me the job I was twiddling my thumbs without an income, now I'm making money and buying stuff. Could I make that money without him? No, he had the infrastructure that allowed me to produce enough to turn my time/labor into value. Exploitation is a one way street where one party profits at the expense of another, not where two parties come together and both profit.

From the economical point of view, it would be more rigorous to say that you benefited from him, because the term 'profit' is used in a more narrow and strict sense. Thus, in your example, you both benefited from each other, but it's only him who got a profit.

Your emotional protest against the word 'exploitation' is understandable. However, you should regard it merely as a notion in a certain economic theory.

Coming back to your example, we may say that he was used by you, whilst you were used by him. However, it's only you who was exploited.

Which is kind of the point, there is something distasteful about being told I'm exploited when I agreed to the contract and want to fulfill my obligations by people who think they have some superior insight into my needs and desires.

Sure, the term 'exploitation' carries certain negative emotional load. If you take it too personally (not merely as a notion in a certain economic theory), it may become offensive.

That's another problem, using definitions we each find "pleasing". I'd rather use the actual definitions, and "exploitation" does not refer to a situation where two parties agree to exchange wealth/value for the perceived betterment of both. These people who say I am "exploited" don't care if I disagree, my views and values are irrelevant to these self-appointed defenders of my time. But we know how they'd react if some socially conservative do-gooder walked up and started dictating how they live...

Well, the term 'exploitation' has been in use for more than 150 years by not so stupid people. Perhaps you should stop taking it too personally, and actually try to understand what is meant by it.

[Velociryx]

Gepap: I am well aware that choices do not simply materialize out of thin air, and of the fact that *something* must inform those choices. Thus, stating the obvious did nothing to further the debate (as you are fond of pointing out my posts that do likewise…and there are some!)

In your example, yes. If your son is weak-minded and weak-willed enough that he believes absolutely everything that dear old dad tells him, despite of compelling evidence to the contrary, then yes. He will likely do as you say, and not buy a car, even when it is clearly advantageous to do so.

However, if he is confident in himself and in his abilities as an INDIVIDUAL, he will continually question the world around him. He will see other people driving cars that he once thought were evil (your influence), realize that they are not being corrupted by the automobile, and then reach the conclusion that the old man was off his rocker! At that point, he will buy a car whether you like it or not.

In your second example, yes….it is true that choice (and the perceived range of choices) CAN be manipulated. Basic psychology bears this out, and it helps your argument….how again?

Had to laugh at your third point though. Individuals define their self worth all kinds of ways. Partly by their economic standing, it is true, but that is not the sum-total of the definition for the vast majority of people. The “supply” of individuals is not dictated by market forces, nor are their worths as individuals determined by economic mechanisms.

I have written three books. Are they “worth” only what the market says they are worth? In terms of their economic impact on my life, yes. But for me personally, they are worth far more than any amount of money I will ever receive from them. I set the goal. I accomplished the goal, and it has value to ME, regardless of what the market might think (of course, there’s no denying that if the market liked them too, I would not be complaining!)

-=Vel=-

EDIT: And yes, when your personal desires clash with those of another, or infringe on another person, you can and should be stopped. That is the purpose of law. Not to dictate your life to you, but to mitigate interactions between individuals. If you "really want to" build a nuke plant, and I really don't want to live next door to one, we have a problem, and a third party (the law, governing agency, or whathaveyou) will step in and resolve it.

If you buy an island in the south pacific a thousand miles from anybody and want to build a nuke plant, nobody would raise an eyebrow

[Velociryx]

Kid - Oh yes, I'm reading your posts very closely. AFTER the killing is done, AFTER the property has been confiscated by the "revolution", THEN (on paper anyway) we'll have a one party democracy run by those in charge of the centralized economy and the state fashioned around it.

I understand very well.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Temp: I'm not saying that capitalism is perfect. But you must concede that it's a far better race horse than ANY attempt at communism has been do date, yes?

Might I remind you, sir, that capitalism has failed completely on at least one occassion and required the most titanic war in human history to drag it out, at the cost of 50+ million lives. At some point, the system will fall down again. Should we then again agree to murder tens of millions of our fellow beings just so we can have prosperity again?

Let us not forget that millions of people are failed by capitalism every year, and they pay for this failure with their lives. In any given decade, capitalism kills more people than Communism did during its 70 year trial run. The main difference is that Communist led countries tended to murder their own while the imperialist countries tended to murder others. A capitalist neo-colonial states did murder their own. Yes, we live well, on the broken lives and bodies of Latin America, etc.

For example, 100,000 Guatemalans died United Fruit could have cheap bananas, while two million were displaced from their homes. The executives at UF do quite well in this system indeed.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Well, the term 'exploitation' has been in use for more than 150 years by not so stupid people. Perhaps you should stop taking it too personally, and actually try to understand what is meant by it.

I think it's funny to see some of the reactions of people who have been properly conditioned by capitalist society when they are exposed to reality.

Here's some I see.

1) I'm exploited! The hell I am!
2) My self-worth is not the same as my income and wealth? The hell it isn't!

and of course...

3) Society is determining my behaviour by setting consequences for my actions? The hell it is! I'm an induvidual!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid - Oh yes, I'm reading your posts very closely. AFTER the killing is done, AFTER the property has been confiscated by the "revolution", THEN (on paper anyway) we'll have a one party democracy run by those in charge of the centralized economy and the state fashioned around it.

I understand very well.

-=Vel=-

No, you don't

[Velociryx]

Che: Nope...no reminder needed. I know the failings of capitalism. And the 50+ million deaths....I think it's safe to say that while that war revived capitalism, it was not caused by capitalism. That honor goes to a goofy looking nutjob with bad hair and a worse political agenda (who was neither capitalist, nor communist, it should be stressed).

When you can show me a working model (working as you describe), I'll be much more interested (as I have said many times before). Till then, it amounts to poorly executed theory.

-=Vel=-