Communists, Don't Fear the Reaper....:D

[Ramo]

That would be one of those bloodless revolutions then, right?

No, that would be in a civil war.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Velociryx
But Spiff....think about what you are saying for a moment.

You just said that one key difference between you and Kid is that you don't propose a revolutionary rise to power.

Kid does.

That means armed conflict.

So yes...it means that Kid is willing to kill to implement his vision of the Utopia.

That's not taking his words out of context....that's what the revolution IS, as you yourself have pointed out.

Yes to all of that.

That means too then, that *I'm* gonna be on the business end of Kid's gun.

Depends on how you behave. If you take arms for the capitalists during the revolution, yes. If you actively support the capitalists during the revolution, probably. If you keep quiet and wait, probably not. Again, this depends on the revolutionaries, and on the counter--revolutionaries too.

Compare with those imaginary Iraqis I mentioned in my previous post. If they're basic Civilians in Baghdad, they will have a very little chance of being killed by the American troops. If they're Iraqi soldiers, the chance rises considerably. If they're Ba'ath fat cats, they're definitely on the business end of the gun.

Since YOU supported the war in Iraq, i.e. since YOU supported to spill the blood of people for some greater good", I don't see why you are so shocked with the principle of a violent revolution. Just like a war, a revolution is the spilling of blood for some "greater good".

You're telling me that such a condition would not make YOU a bit harder to convince that the revolution is "good for you"?

Would not make you just a shade hostile at the notion?

You would definitely be at the losing end of a Kidicious utopia, violent revolution or not. I can understand very well why you are hostile to his utopia, even if you ignore the violence of the rise to power (which you should survive anyway, if you avoid doing something stupid)

But the technique you used in the post I am criticizing (the one featuring "Berzerkez's blood "Flubber's blood" etc.) isn't any less wrong. You twisted Kid's phrase to the point you made him a bloodthirsty, genocidial villain. You called to the audience's emotion (something you are talented for) in order to score easy hits.

It is not your hostility that is wrong. Your hostility is perfectly understandable. What is wrong is the debating techniques you are using. They make this brand of thread an absolute pain*

However, you're not the only one to make the Cap/Com threads painful to read.


There's a reason most Commies have given up these threads, and only add a few token comments. In this here thread, only Kidicious continues to argue (less and less), and Agathon posts the odd medium-sized post.

Before you say it, no, the Commies haven't given up these threads because they have been proven wrong, and now want to hide their shame. The Commies have abandoned these threads because they are tired of being misrepresented, and of seeing their critics getting excited on the misrepresentations they created.

The most blatant example I can think of is Curtsibling. He basically thought all Commie were young little "rebel" twerps (yet comfortably middle class) who were communist because it was "cool". He believe the Commies wanted to bring stalinism back. And of course, he insulted us all with his BAM, and the vocabulary he used. None of us Commies recognized ourselves in his description, yet he insisted painting us with the same broad, ugly brush.

I was the only one to explain him quietly that his preconceptions were completely false, and that his style was a pain. And I really had to force myself not tell him "go **** yourself" like the others (he antagonized the "religionists" just the same BTW).

I am using the most blatant example because I want you to understand where I'm getting at. Don't worry, you are far better than Curtsibling, as you actually listen and take into account what the others say.
But you still misrepresent the others' ideas. Unlike Curtsibling, these misrepresentations don't come out of the blue, but from the twisting of the others' words. And then you criticize this misrepresentation, and demand explanations to the "author" of a perception that is in fact wrong.

Chegitz tired of this. Monkspider tired of this. I tired of this (very quickly btw). Agathon seemingly tired of this. Kidicious is visibly tiring of this. It's not only you who is affected, as demonstrated by the many people who flinged Stalin in the previous threads, but it seems you are the only one to embody this flaw now that we are talking pure theory.

---

Example.
Your image of Kid's utopia is one of a terrible, Stalinist society. In that society, those who survive the initial purge are basically enslaved, as they must work where they don't want, where they can never hope to have opportunities, and where they generally can see their property stolen if they get too much.
---------------------
I'll now try to create a more humane image of Kid's society (keep in mind I disagree with many aspects of it, so I will probably not do a great job).
The armed counter-revolution has been swiftly routed, and the capitalist soldiers surrender en masse. Their surrendrance is accepted.
A period of five years begins, before the first election can occur. The revolutationary government sets up the economic and political reforms quickly.

1. The economy is wholly planned. What does it mean? Before the revolution, the huge bulk of people (the non-freelance ones) had to pick a job among the offer proposed by the corporations. They will now have to pick a job among the offer proposed by the State. Indeed, the State needs people to fill up the ranks - it doesn't have to individually decide who does what.

2. Wage depends on the work one gives. Since it is impossible to watch over everybody all the time to know how hard he works, things get systematized. Ditch-diggers is a high paid job. One has to be some # of hours at the workplace, as checked by one of those timing machines already existing in today's factories. The foremen / HR make sure the people are working, just like they do today.

3. There will be a balance movement if some people get ahead. To compensate for the extra "stuff" they own, there will be a tax on property, that progressively rises as property expands. Similar to today's progressive taxes.

4. Since the people will all be employed by the State, the intellectual creations they'll do will belong to the State. Just like today's engineers working in R&D departments don't own the new techniques they produce, or just like today's advertisers working in corporations don't own the intellectual products they make.
-----------------------------------------
Granted, this is probably not an environment where a freelance guy like you would like to live. You would probably even hate it, since this environment would bar you from being freelance. However, this is a livable environment (very similar to today), and definitely different from the Orwellian nightmare you are describing, and villifying. And this comes from exactly the same quotes.

---

Do you see what I mean with this long post? I mean that your style is to twist somebody else's words into some horror, and to criticize that horror. And when someone is exposing his utopia, he wants to discuss the society as he envisions it, not as the horror version of it.

For a better understanding, read Monkspider's post in this current thread. It may be two sentence long, but I think it is absolutely spot on. It says in a few words what I am taking so long to explain.

[Velociryx]

:: shakes head sadly::

Ramo, if Kid tried to implement his vision tomorrow, the "Counter-Revolutionaries" would have to be dealt with immediately.

It would not be a case of painless integration and then a sudden wave of dissent, and you know that full well.

Thus, the "Revolution" would meet the "Counter Revolution" on day one.

And it would not be bloodless.

But thanks for proving me right.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Spiff....I do see what you are saying, yes.

Because I know upfront where I stand with Kid and the revolution, I AM looking at it from the perspective of the worst case scenario, because that is *precisely* the scenario that would be applied to me (assuming I survived the revolution at all), and I would contend that this is not inappropriate.

The *reason* I contend that it is not is because it doesn't matter how the revolution as a whole is implemented (well, yes it does, but keep reading)....where my questions stem from is how they will affect ME.

Assuming I survived (and yes, I would take up arms to stop it, so that is by no means a given), I would be viewed with revulsion, scorn and derision....and that's the very BEST case.

Worst case.....well, you fill in the blanks of that swift and final blow.

-=Vel=-

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
@Spiff: Are you seriously saying it would be less bad if Kid killed people we don't know in order to implement his utopia than if he killed Vel and Flub?

Absolutely not.

I am not arguing Kid's utopia here. I am arguing Vel's rhetorical techniques.

And Vel used the names of our boys to make his point more emotional, to score a cheap hit.

(for the record: I oppose recolutions on principle just like I oppose wars on principle. Both pretend to bring some "greater good" that will outweight the "necessary evil" of violence. They need a very good case for me to be convinced).

[Velociryx]

And for the record, I have no problems discussing communism without getting my hackles up.

Monolith and I have had a few productive exchanges, but then, I get the sense from him that he also does not favor a revolutionary rise to power.

That's a horse of a very different color.

Not at all the one we're talking about here, and yes, it does impact my debate style.

I know when debating you, for example, that because you do not espouse a revolutionary approach, were I to suddenly find myself in your rendition of Communism, that my head will more than likely remain attached to my shoulders, even if unhappily.

Under the plan on the table at present, I have no such guarantee.

That makes it look....less-than-attractive to me, I'm happy to admit.

-=Vel=-

[Last Conformist]

@Spiff: So, you're basically assuming we're dumb/egoistic enough to be moved by a claim that our friends will be killed, but not one that strangers will be?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The *reason* I contend that it is not is because it doesn't matter how the revolution as a whole is implemented (well, yes it does, but keep reading)....where my questions stem from is how they will affect ME.

You are a freelance guy strongly attached to the values of capitalism. You'd be a very big loser of the Kidicious revolution, as it is definitely not made for the people like you. Besides, being a planned economy, there is no room from freelancing (from what I understand), so you'd have to adopt a completely different way of life, which you won't like. You'll probably earn less, as I assume you're pretty well off.
And if you indeed take up arms for the counter-revolution, you would probably die during the war anyway.

Hardly rocket science. If you wanted to prove that a Kidicious revolution was bad for you, it was really superfluous.

But I thought a debate about utopias (especially those that are doomed to be purely theoretic) was about the societal level, and not how it would affect the debaters. Most of the questions you asked Kidicious in this thread were about the societal level (like the value of labor, which is quite an abstract discussion), and they didn't seem that self-centered when I read them.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
@Spiff: So, you're basically assuming we're dumb/egoistic enough to be moved by a claim that our friends will be killed, but not one that strangers will be?

Duh. We're humans.

[Velociryx]

'nother odd thought here:

I observe that the capitalists do not have a monopoly on generalizations.

How many times have we, on the other side of the fence, been called "Capitalist-Pig-Dogs," shameless exploiters, told that we have blood on our hands, are responsible for all the evils that were peretrated by the system dating back to the industrial revolution, etc?

Clearly, both sides fight fire with fire. Of all the cap/com debates I have participated in (and I've participated in most of them), this has become the norm.

Right? Wrong? I dunno, man. But it happens, and frequently. On BOTH sides of the fence.

The interesting thing though, is that most of the capitalist debaters are still here, despite the misrepresentations cast against them.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Spiff...quite so....but in asking those top-down questions, I can easily gain a sense of what life FOR ME would be like under the system as a whole, and that is truly the genesis *of* the questions, even if they are phrased from a society-as-a-whole standpoint.

Now as you say, odds are good that (assuming the revolution succeeds, and we must make that assumption, if we are to discuss it at length) I would be dead...but if I somehow managed to survive....then it hits home for me.

What would life be like, day to day?

What would my job be? How would the pay be structured? How would my wage be determined?

All that jazz.

-=Vel=-

[Agathon]

May I ask the question "What is "Fair" about letting you dictate what "fair" is for the rest of us?

I came across this while reading back through the thread.

This is a seriously confused point of view. If fairness is going to play any role in organizing a society it has to count as the same for everyone. The same goes for justice. We can't let every clown operate according to his own principle of justice, since justice is largely concerned with interpersonal rights and wrongs.

Liberals and Libertarians have their own non-negotiable principles of justice, just as much as communists, and they all have to be backed up with force to make them work.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Right? Wrong? I dunno, man. But it happens, and frequently. On BOTH sides of the fence.

Yep, these generalizations happen on both sides of the fence (although I don't know if our capitalist debaters are often accused individually of supporting the horrors of the 19th century). And these generalizations are wrong, because they add noise, and they hinder a good and healthy debate.

[Velociryx]

Ag...exactly.

Which means that "fairness" can't just be arbitrarily decided by some central planning committee, and handed down from on high.

Spiff: Then, what can I say but I shall attempt to do better at controlling my own emotions when writing, since that is where the emotionality stems from, because yes...when debating the merits of THIS society, I do so with the thought that I'd have a death sentence looming over my head, beginning on day one of the revolution. Thus, it's hard for me to generate much internal excitement OVER said revolution.

-=Vel=-

Viva la Vel! (not the revolution!)

[monkspider]

Don't worry too much about it Vel, you had a good run at least. Writing strategy guides, creating multi-page threads, and so on.