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

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

LOL....

Sik,

Its way too scary that we think the same.

Og

[Velociryx]

I think this is the part where they come back with something about some *completely* marginalized tribe living in a rainforest whose societal structure is communal in nature. Never mind the fact that their current status (as a totally marginalized group) has everything to do with the way their society is set up....

-=Vel=-
(not that I've ever participated in these debates before or anything.... )

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
LOL....

Sik,

Its way too scary that we think the same.

Og

I'm sure there are some subtle differences, but for me it's a compliment anyway.

Capitalism is not much more than observation over millenia of human economic behavior, and a very few tenets to assure what its authors considered to be the most efficient model would be preferred.

Communism is nothing more than theory that has failed spectacularly in its many guises, rebirths and rethinkings. It isn't nearly as scientific as capitalism because it was formed as grandiose theory on the spot during a very discreet and fairly unique era of human existence. It lives on today on life support, its only refuges a few dictatorships that cannot survive beyond their own
identification with this failed series of systems, and of course academia, much of which exists apparantly to keep destructive ideas like communism, sexism and racism alive, with varying levels of success.

[Berzerker]

Templar -

If NASA was a waste, unplug your damn TV - satellites are involved. Throw out everything with a microprocessor or semiconductor - the needs of minaturization for space travel are primarily responsible for those developments.

Do me a favor, read my posts and make an effort to respond to what I said before making a point I just addressed. If government throws around billions of dollars, it's bound to come up with something. That doesn't mean the expenditure wasn't a waste.

The internet? Knock it off with the Al Gore thing. First, he was misquoted, so your playing the fool by repeating it.

it was a government invention.

Government rarely "invents" things, at most, it doles out our money to other people to do research. Did government invent telephone lines and computers? And yet the internet is basicly just a way of connecting these inventions.

Capitalists are followers, not leaders.

That way they can watch those innovative commies fall off the cliff.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I have a tremendous difficulty believing inthe concept of social evolution.

It has nothing to do with social evolution. Just stop rewarding people for killing for resources. That's all.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sikander
Peaceful people will be at a competitive disadvantage against reasonably violent people.

Peacefull people are now at a disadvantage. Just change system to a system where peacefull people are not at a disadvantage.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I think this is the part where they come back with something about some *completely* marginalized tribe living in a rainforest whose societal structure is communal in nature. Never mind the fact that their current status (as a totally marginalized group) has everything to do with the way their society is set up....

-=Vel=-
(not that I've ever participated in these debates before or anything.... )

Why should we provide examples for things that are just so obvious? All we have to do is assume that people are rational, and expect you to do the same thing. Why would people fight for resources when they aren't allowed to keep them, and they will be thrown in jail for doing so? It's not enough to win the debate. We have to change your way of thinking. If you would just make the right assumptions you would see the light.

edit: Let's use the US as an example. Here you have to compete for resources to get them. Otherwise you face a life of poverty. Consider the poor people who don't have sympathy for other human beings. Unfortunately there are a lot of them. We can see that from the crime rate. To them there is no reason not to commit crime, any crime. They will murder and not care less, because they don't care if they go to prison. Prison is not as bad as poverty. Out of prison you have to compete for resources and you still end up in poverty. In prison you don't have to work and you have all of your needs met.

Take poverty out of the equation. In fact, provide every law obeying citizen with an decent living, and make prison a REAL penalty and you will see very little crime.

[Velociryx]

What a gold mine of quotes to respond to this morning!

It has nothing to do with social evolution. Just stop rewarding people for killing for resources. That's all.

That's right! Kill them for resisting when the GOVERNMENT competes for resources by taking theirs! Obviously a vastly superior solution!

Peacefull people are now at a disadvantage. Just change system to a system where peacefull people are not at a disadvantage.

I'll agree again! Let's change the system so that the peaceful people all live under the thumb of their dictatorial masters (who rose to power violently, and can therefore be safely assumed to be anything BUT peaceful)....and if the peaceful people dare breathe a word in resistance....well, we've already seen what they get, haven't we?

we have to do is assume that people are rational, and expect you to do the same thing

Did you sleep through all your econ classes? One of the first things mentioned in any basic study of economics is that people are (most of the time) rational. We're making the same assumptions, it's just that we disagree that it's "rational" to let the Borg Collective come in and tell us how to live and think. But you're right on one count, it should be fairly obvious.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Well it doesn't matter if you hard core types will ever understand. Vel, you will be still making the same poor arguments when the official unemployment rate is 30%.

[JohnT]

You people couldn't even organize a book club. What makes you so certain you can re-organize a whole global society?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
* Velociryx wonders if GePap has ever heard the term "corporate culture." Probably not, given the singular definition of culture he seems to want to apply.

Corporatye culture applies to the needs of an organization to have a set of internal values to function, since for it to functon all its members need to share this common set of goals (from my organization's class)

And IN a capitalist culture (used the word again, cos I know you luv me!), there is more incentive to innovate. Whether that innovation stems from state-funded ventures is immaterial, it is still driven by the same capitalist culture (as are all derivative products from it).

There is lots of incentive to create, yes there is. As far as innovate (a subset of creation), it varies. Any innovation not well recieved by the market will fail to catch on, and future innovations could very well oerturn the whole capitalist system, as new innovations have upended systems before.

Yes GePap, I'll grant you, on paper, communism CAN reward innovation. The reason I keep going back to the USSR is because I don't give a rat's a$$ about the theory, as I have stated numerous times. We don't live in theory, we live here....you know....earth? Big blue planet as seen from space? And here on earth, as communism has been implemented EACH AND EVERY TIME it has been trotted out, it brings with it authoritarian, dictatorial powers in charge of a highly centralized government built around control of the command economy.

That's the way it has been IN FACT. Not in theory, but in practice.

And what is the "truth" of Earth? There is none. You assume there to be some "reality" seeprate from ideas and theories that man could live in, and he fact is that man "as aminal" can, but not man as a sentient being. We think things up, we create, and hence we live in a world of our own making, a world of ideas, hence, change the ideas, change the world.

Maybe you should look at Communist theory after Marx. I personally blame Lenin. It was Lenion who upeneded what was then orthodox communis by saying that, instead of waiting for capitalism to , by its own processes, build the tools of its own downfall and a popular and general revoluto by the working classes (communism from bellow), that a political vanguard could, by overtaking the political system, speed up the whole porcess by making the gvernment pro-revolution. Lenin inserted a "political" fix to what was seen as an "economic" subject. Every communist revolution that has taken place took place in places not yet sometimes even yet at the capitalis stage, far less at the bink of the communist revolution of the workers.

Hence change the theory (from one in which one waits for the ystem to build the tools of the revolution on its own, just wait for it to one in which you pre-empt this and try to nurse the revoltuion along politically), change the world.

And IN that environment, there is no room, will, or desire for innovation, because those same innovative minds can also be subversive thinkers....they could lead a counterrevolution which could threaten the power of the state, and we can't have that.

No big mystery, but you keep on imagining that there is, 'k? Cos I DO so enjoy taking breaks from packing to come back and see the latest!

-=Vel=-

And as I have stated a dozen times, what you point to is a political failure whose roots I outline above. What you point to is a POLITICAL process and a failing (as relevant for 15th century China) of authoritarian politics, not the notion of collectivized economies, and since the arguemnt of this thread (wehih you keep extending) is on economic systems, you would do better than to just harp on one POLITICAL issue (no matter how much I may like them).

[Kidlicious]

What happened to that? I think some people wanted to read old books and some people wanted to read new books. I book was elected. I think it was Engles. I read 2/3rds of it, but I never saw the thread for the discussion.

[JohnT]

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

[Kidlicious]

I believe that MtG has been converted. I haven't seen anything from him.

[JohnT]

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