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

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
What happened to it? IIRC, it was supposed to be a communal effort. That's what happened to it.

Oh yes, you believe that people can't work together at all.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
No, he's busy exploitating the masses. As am I, which is why I haven't participated either.

On a Sunday. I'm shocked.

[JohnT]

Naw, the only thing that proves is that you people can't work together. My Science fiction book discussion group is doing quite fine, thank you, and there's a very good reason for that.

[Kidlicious]

I think that it shows that we should have picked a different book, something more up to date, for the first book.

[Velociryx]

Kid: I don't think so. If unemployment was chronically that high, we'd have a major problem, and the system would require an immediate and dramatic change. And if that were the case, I certainly wouldn’t be actively supporting the system, because it would be clearly evident that the system is (fatally) flawed.

But that’s not the case. Unemployment is relatively low, opportunities abound, and by any economic measure you’d care to look at, the system I am arguing for has improved the lives of the greatest number of people in the shortest amount of time.

And what can be said of communist experiments to date?
1) Authoritarian, Dictatorial, Brutal governments
2) Mass killings during “purges” as people were collectivized and property confiscated
3) Little innovation, difficulty keeping up with western (capitalist) societies
4) Failure to accomplish the stated mission of plenty for everyone

So…in light of the fact that the current system is working (albeit imperfectly), and the proposed system has NEVER worked….ummm, no. I’m not particularly inclined to agree.

GePap:
And what is the "truth" of Earth? There is none.

If it pleases you to believe that the earth holds no truth, that’s your bag. It IS true that communist experiments have failed in the past. Every time they have been tried. THAT is one truth. There are plenty of others. If you do not wish to recognize them when they hit you in the face, again….that’s your deal, but just because you close your eyes and say that the moon does not exist does not make it so.

The *reason* that the political problems inherent cannot be separated from the economic problems in the communist system are because the communists themselves, by virtue of the way communism has been implemented in the real world thus far, have merged the two. The state is the economy. The state was built around control over the centralized economy.

Maybe you should look at Communist theory after Marx.

And maybe you should look at communism in practice. Theory is great for writing papers. Practice is where we live.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
If it pleases you to believe that the earth holds no truth, that’s your bag. It IS true that communist experiments have failed in the past. Every time they have been tried. THAT is one truth. There are plenty of others. If you do not wish to recognize them when they hit you in the face, again….that’s your deal, but just because you close your eyes and say that the moon does not exist does not make it so.

This is such a trite and inconsequential asnwer, that is all it will get.

The *reason* that the political problems inherent cannot be separated from the economic problems in the communist system are because the communists themselves, by virtue of the way communism has been implemented in the real world thus far, have merged the two. The state is the economy. The state was built around control over the centralized economy.

Which leave communist to learn from past mistakes and separate the two and create new theories, does it not? We can leave behind Lenin's contribution and try to go back to the source and innovate from there. Oh, and you are wrong on the last part: the centralized economy was built around the state, not the other way around. The party is a politcal vanguard, meaning that politics lead, not economics. That is why party functionaries did much better (look ma, no equality of ends!) then economists in the system.

And maybe you should look at communism in practice. Theory is great for writing papers. Practice is where we live

You know this makes no sense. If we live in practice, we never actually perform...

You speak about innovation all the time Vel, well, what is innovation? A new way of thinking that then leads to a new thing or mode of action. The IDEA comes first, and out of the IDEA comes the thing. If man did live in "practice", there would be no innovation, only improvisation.

[Velociryx]

Semantics is such a fun game to play, is it not, GePap?

You said, "there are no truths." Your words, not mine. If you really believe it, then yes, a trite answer is about all that's worth.

Practice IS performance. I know, you'd rather play the semantics game....if I have time later, I might join you for a while, but for the moment, since I'm at work and must keep the window minimized for the most part, I'll steer clear from the colorful semantics debate.

I'm all for the commies coming up with new theories...that'd be great! So far though, what we've seen is not markedly different from the last effort of the big red pony. No thanks.

This debate is actually a good case study for why it won't work.

Neither side in the debate are huddling together planning what to say next. It's just a bunch of individuals (that word...my how it keeps popping up!) debating for one side or the other.

But do you know what's interesting?

All the folks arguing for the capitalist side are all on the same page.

We're not secretly meeting in the chat room to get our story straight, we're just arguing from the reality of the present situation.

Contrast that with the communist side and we get:

Kid arguing for equality of outcomes

GePap scolding us for thinking that communism is about equality of outcomes

Templar arguing for a ballot box revolution

Che arguing along classic Marxist lines

Gepap not really debating, but doing what he and I always do when we disagree in a thread

If you guys can't even get your act together sufficiently to present a coherent argument where it at least APPEARS that everybody is on the same page....what's that say about the theory you are arguing in favor OF?



-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

I'll even answer my own question: First and foremost, it says quite clearly that the theory is most assuredly NOT "ready for prime time."



-=Vel=-

(and by that I mean that it is not yet ready to be put into "practice" )

[DAVOUT]

This is an attempt of mediation between Vel and Gepap.

Gepap said :

You speak about innovation all the time Vel, well, what is innovation? A new way of thinking that then leads to a new thing or mode of action. The IDEA comes first, and out of the IDEA comes the thing. If man did live in "practice", there would be no innovation, only improvisation.

Mediation :
The practical idea comes first, and out of the practical idea comes the improved thing.

[GePap]

That fact, that there is no single argument, points to a diversity of thought, innovation and different ideas. Now, if you want to claim you have the same aguments as JohnT and Imran, well, were did capitalist innovation go, if all you guys are simply spouting orthodoxy?

Practice IS performance. I know, you'd rather play the semantics game....if I have time later, I might join you for a while, but for the moment, since I'm at work and must keep the window minimized for the most part, I'll steer clear from the colorful semantics debate.

If practice were performance, therwe would be only one word, not two.

This debate is actually a good case study for why it won't work.

Actualy, it isn't. As of yet, you really have only responded to Kid's aguemnts, why not really tackling Templars, or Che's, or mine. Can you porve Templar's arguemnt, and his alone, would not work? Until you do so, you can hardly claim anything close to "victory"

[GePap]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Mediation :
The practical idea comes first, and out of the practical idea comes the improved thing.

Nice attempt, but honestly I think meditation is not possible without fundamentaly changing the terms being used.

[Velociryx]

Dave!

Good attempt at mediation, but no worries! I can’t speak for GePap of course, but there’s no ill will here….this is just….what we do when we disagree (we’re absolute dynamite when we’re on the same side of an issue, but when we butt heads, he brings out the biting sarcasm in me, that’s for sure! )

I think the essence of our differences can be boiled down to this: GePap is a “the world is a deep, vast mystery” kinda guy, and I’m a “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it’s prolly a duck” kinda guy. He thinks I oversimplify, and I think he makes every little thing needlessly complex. Just a difference in methodology, mostly….

And to GePap!:

There’s all sorts of diversity of thought, but in a generalized debate of communism vs. capitalism, we’ve been able to ignore the differences in micro-level methodology and all get on the same basic page, whereas you guys don’t even know what you want to do IF/WHEN the revolution comes! (or even what form it should take—guns blazing, per Kid, ballot box, per Templar).

And the REASON I have not debated much directly with Templar, you, or Che, is because you guys keep harping about what it looks like on paper.

So what? It doesn’t matter what it looks like on paper. Build it and see what it looks like when you’re done! THAT is what matters! Until then, it’s just flowery talk.

Can you porve Templar's arguemnt, and his alone, would not work? Until you do so, you can hardly claim anything close to "victory"

I don’t have to. I’m arguing from the side that’s working *in practice* (that phrase again…dontcha love it!) right now. He’s already admitted that his is pure theory. It’s up to your side to prove it. We’re not going to do your debating for you.

If practice were performance, therwe would be only one word, not two.

Be right back, I have to go make an appointment down at the Medical Performance….erm…Practice….no wait! The doc recently lost his license when he couldn’t afford to carry his malperformance insurance….

GePap….really. I’m disappointed….

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Vel:
To perform and to practice are similar, bu they are not the same, Hence the two different words. Words are not created out of nowhere. A drizzle and a shower are similar, but not the same.

I don’t have to. I’m arguing from the side that’s working *in practice* (that phrase again…dontcha love it!) right now. He’s already admitted that his is pure theory. It’s up to your side to prove it. We’re not going to do your debating for you.

Notice then how you are not actually talking about what I or Templer (I assume) are actually talking about, since you here admit you make no rpetense to argue against the theory, only to point out which system is working right now (though a higly modified version full of socialistic systems in it as well). Since I do not care to argue about "which is working", since that ins;t really a debate, I guess I will wait for the theoretical defenders of capitalism to show up.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid: I don't think so. If unemployment was chronically that high, we'd have a major problem, and the system would require an immediate and dramatic change. And if that were the case, I certainly wouldn’t be actively supporting the system, because it would be clearly evident that the system is (fatally) flawed.

One thing I want to know. In 1932 who would you have voted for? Your acceptance of inequality, poverty and crime seems to tell me that you would be a Hooverite

[Velociryx]

GePap: Even as stubborn as you are, you must concede that saying:

"as communism is working now in practice"

is the correct use of the word and phrase, not

"as communism is working now in performance"

And that's as far as I'll go down the semantics road with you, 'k?

drizzle...shower....RAIN!

And I've said from the start, debating the paper theory is meaningless. Let's see it in action, and then we'll have something to talk about.

That would be like debating the baseball game before it is played. Just....not all that much to talk about, is there?

-=Vel=-