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

[Velociryx]

Really, Og! The nerve! You should know by now that there is no spoon...erm...truth. That's what I meant....there is no truth!

Communism never failed, we just, in our limitations, which are defined almost solely (at this point) by our societal conditioning, percieve that it did not succeed optimally.

Welcome to the world according to GePap...

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


And what does modern man have to do with the "nature of man" anyway?

Nothing and everything. We are essentially the same base creature we always were. Strip away the thin veneer of civilization and we're the same creature filled with selfish wants.

Some portion of our population will always act in their own interests and subjugate other portions. Has always been will always be. I don't care what government tag you apply.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Of course you would like me to try, GePap (said so in my last post, even!). But it really wouldn't be all that entertaining for me to debate both sides of the same issue, so I shall refrain.

If you cant debate both sides, you are not that good of a debater. (edit: I lawys meant can't, even if at first it said can)

Now you can muddy the waters all you want (which you DO seem to love to do), spouting phrases like "there is no truth" (tell that to the guy standing in the bread line, will you--you're haven't REALLY been standing in line for two days waiting for a few crumbs...why? Cos GePap said so, of course! but doing so does nothing for the debate.

how is pointing out what is at the bottom of the river muddying the waters?

Right now, you and I aren't even debating the original issue (and haven't been for some time). At best, we're debating about the debate, which I find, frankly silly, but given your love of semantics games and such, it comes as no great surprise. Rather than debate the matter at hand, you prefer to mosey off into bizzare directions, make some apples to oranges comparisons and call it a day, and hey! If that's your preference, have at it! It is not, however, my preference. If we're going to make comparisons, and if they are going to have meaning, then we should make comparisons of like systems (capitalism as it is now, to communism as it is now). A theoretical discussion of the idealized versions of either does nothing to answer the questions of whether or not they have been successful in their implementation.

The issue was never whether they could be successfull in their implementations. You forget the genesis of these threads, which was the Speer post, in which he argued what the basis of capitalism was, thus the question of what lies at root was there form the beginning. It is only you that refuses to talk about possibilities and sticks only to "implementation". You ased how anyone could know how to allocate resources without the market. I gave you a technical answre to that, whic you never responded to at all.

But you're a smart fellow. You already know this. I'm just not playing your game and it frustrates you....

And yes....imagine....private enterprise (you know....having to worry about profit, loss, and lawsuits, and more) took a while to catch up to the monolithic state who could throw money and lives at space flight without having to answer to anyone. Shocking....

I questio whether until space travel is made inexpensive, out of the public dole, space will ever be open for porfitable exploration by private enerprise. Some porjects are so huge and risky that only the ublic sector can and will take them on.

So...shall we continue debating about the debate of the debate, or playing cutsy games with semantics, or do you have something to add regarding communism, and how it might be implemented differently next time so as not to end up as totalitarian state? (GASP! Vel asking for theory! Will wonders never cease?!)

-=Vel=-

I have already stated I am no Marxist-Leninist. I think Lenin was wrong, i think marx was wrong on many details. But communism can exist beyond them. If you fail to understand or graps this, your porblem, not mine. Where Marx was correct, i believe, is that all system build the conditions that eventually bring them to an end, and I do think that after capitalism comes to a end (like mercantalism and feudalism came to an end before it), what follows will be a form of communism. If you feel unable to argue with that, don't try.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Nothing and everything. We are essentially the same base creature we always were. Strip away the thin veneer of civilization and we're the same creature filled with selfish wants.

Some portion of our population will always act in their own interests and subjugate other portions. Has always been will always be. I don't care what government tag you apply.

And we are also the same people who came up with things like monestaries and religions like Buddhism and christinaity. One of the longest lasting cultures of man in the world was that of the aborigenes: if you can tell me what that has to do with your apocalyptic vision of man, well, that would be interesting.

Love is in a way a selfish want. Man is a social being. He craves power and status. The question is, how do you define power and status? those definitins can change, and hence the ends of man.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


I have already stated I am no Marxist-Leninist. I think Lenin was wrong, i think marx was wrong on many details. But communism can exist beyond them. If you fail to understand or graps this, your porblem, not mine. Where Marx was correct, i believe, is that all system build the conditions that eventually bring them to an end, and I do think that after capitalism comes to a end (like mercantalism and feudalism came to an end before it), what follows will be a form of communism. If you feel unable to argue with that, don't try.

Perhaps perhaps not. Certainly the world has seen its fair share of governmental revolutions. In almost every case though you can point to a selfish motive that caused the revolution. If and when a communist revolution comes, youcan be assured it will be because the underprivledged are looking to selfishly aquire the wealth of the upper class.

And likewise just as every other government is doomed so would be communism as it does not put the individual first and foremost as is the true want of man.

[Velociryx]

Yes! Communism can exist beyond them!

Now...how are you going to go about making that happen?

Given the lessons of history (side note: if there is no truth, do you even acknoledge historical fact, or does it just get tossed as irrelevant?), and the mistakes made in earlier implementations of communism, what would you do differently? How would you ensure that a centralized elite did not spring up?

(and, even tho I poked fun at your net resource browser, it was a good idea....not complete--ie, by itself it would be nothing more than a functional database--but a good start. Build on that. Add to that. I'll listen, and even comment.

Thing is, I never talk about the game before the game.

I never bothered with fantasy football.

Know why? Cos my talking about the game won't change its outcome, and is therefore, not something I care to spend time on.

Talking about the particulars of the game afterwards (and during), yeah, that rocks, but beforehand, it's all speculation. When I want to speculate, I write fiction. I don't speculate with people's lives (which is what a half cocked implementation of communism will cost).

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


And we are also the same people who came up with things like monestaries and religions like Buddhism and christinaity. One of the longest lasting cultures of man in the world was that of the aborigenes: if you can tell me what that has to do with your apocalyptic vision of man, well, that would be interesting.

Love is in a way a selfish want. Man is a social being. He craves power and status. The question is, how do you define power and status? those definitins can change, and hence the ends of man.

And religion has the perhaps the longest set of sins of mankind attached to it as selfish people in charge enacted their wills on others.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The etiology of schizophrenia is unknown, but the conditions necessary for its appearance are environmental stress and individual vulnerability

Poverty is a prime factor that contributes to mental illness,….

Still reading but these two quotes jump out at me.

1) The etiology is not known.
1a) LOTS of things cause environmental stress—like, oh, say, being threatened by the party bosses that your family will disappear
2) Says here that poverty is a prime factor. “A” meaning that there are other “prime factors” as well, as in, poverty is one of the factors. Not the cause. Not the only factor.

Further, per the article you sent me to:

More than a third of the world’s illnesses would be preventable if we could change the behaviors that increase the risk of illness

So, the article itself stresses that more than one third of the problem is behavioral in nature (ie – even if poverty was no longer an issue, if basic behavioral changes were not made, the illness would still occur). Unless you are now going to argue that poverty is a behavioral pattern, rather than an economic condition?

Further, given that poverty existed in the USSR, and given that it exists today in China, one can hardly attribute poverty as being in the exclusive domain of capitalism (since neither of those systems were capitalistic).

But that hurts your argument, so we'll just ignore it, right?

-=Vel=-
(as you say....educate yourself )

Maybe poverty doesn't cause all mental illness, and maybe the blue sky doesn't cause Dubya's roids. I never said either of those things.

Man, it's amazing that you guys are able to rule the world. You can;t even keep up your side of a debate on the things that matter most to you. All you can do is create strawmen.

[Velociryx]

GePap: I would argue that the REASON the aborigenal culture survived intact for as long as it did simply by virtue of its total lack of contact with outside influences, not on the virtue of its own inherent strengths. Coffee in a vacuum sealed bag stays fresh. Doesn't mean that there's anything special about the coffee itself tho (and admit it! You KNOW you love the speed with which I can whip an analogy out! )

Power: The basic tenent of power has not changed since the first ape picked up a club.

Power over other men.

What changes around that is mere window dressing. The manifestation itself has not changed one whit.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Nope...you never said poverty doesn't cause ALL mental illness, but you sure did say poverty causes mental illness.

Want me to quote you again?

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Yes! Communism can exist beyond them!

Now...how are you going to go about making that happen?

Given the lessons of history (side note: if there is no truth, do you even acknoledge historical fact, or does it just get tossed as irrelevant?), and the mistakes made in earlier implementations of communism, what would you do differently? How would you ensure that a centralized elite did not spring up?

For one thing, start in a state rich enough to make it work: none of the states in which communist revolutions took place were rich, they were all poor. Communism is expensive. Second, no revolutionary vanguard. The process to building it would be slow, form the bottom up. I do beleieve that as capitalism evolves further tensions will rise between it and the democratic system. I can elaborate latter.

(and, even tho I poked fun at your net resource browser, it was a good idea....not complete--ie, by itself it would be nothing more than a functional database--but a good start. Build on that. Add to that. I'll listen, and even comment.

But that is all one needs as far as respource allocation, the data to pintpoint were folks want the resources spent. The big issue is with distribution and the manufacturing lines themselves.

Talking about the particulars of the game afterwards (and during), yeah, that rocks, but beforehand, it's all speculation. When I want to speculate, I write fiction. I don't speculate with people's lives (which is what a half cocked implementation of communism will cost).

That you dislike it has no relevance to its value. I don;t like Tennis. Doesn;t mean tennis has any less inherent value than something I personally like.

And likewise just as every other government is doomed so would be communism as it does not put the individual first and foremost as is the true want of man.

The individual, in the modern sense, has been put first and foremost only in the last 300 years. out of an assumed 100,000 years of homo sapiens sapiens that is an insinificant time of "man's nature".

This being the wettest June on record in NYC, I should go an enjoy this one day of sun and high 80's. S I will check in later, if it hasn't reached 500.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Nope...you never said poverty doesn't cause ALL mental illness, but you sure did say poverty causes mental illness.

Want me to quote you again?

-=Vel=-

Damn! You are denser than ****! Yes, I said that it causes mental illness, and I gave you a cite!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap

The individual, in the modern sense, has been put first and foremost only in the last 300 years. out of an assumed 100,000 years of homo sapiens sapiens that is an insinificant time of "man's nature".

This being the wettest June on record in NYC, I should go an enjoy this one day of sun and high 80's. S I will check in later, if it hasn't reached 500.

Your kidding me right. You truly beleive that the root causes for ancient war and the power struggles of old had nothing to do with the me.

Ceaser he was doing it simply for the greater good of Rome right? Lol....

Alexander the Great .... yep he just wanted everyone to be happy nothing in it for him right?

I'll grant you only in the last 300 years has their been a representative governement although one could argue that the Romans had a semblence of one.

Has always been will always be.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Communism is a pipe dream contradicted by the very nature of man.

Survival is part of the nature of man, killing is not. People will only kill if they have to do it to survive. Killing for any other reason is psychopathic.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap
[

For one thing, start in a state rich enough to make it work: none of the states in which communist revolutions took place were rich, they were all poor. Communism is expensive. Second, no revolutionary vanguard. The process to building it would be slow, form the bottom up. I do beleieve that as capitalism evolves further tensions will rise between it and the democratic system. I can elaborate latter.

Seems to me your describing a starting point wherein the state has some time to digest itself. Redistibute the wealth and then hope and pray that there is a mechanism to continue to create wealth for all. Simply seem to me to be robbing the rich to pay the poor with nothing after that. I've been reading to much Ayn Rand I guess.