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

[Agathon]

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

It doesn't mean that at all. It certainly doesn't mean that it can be established by decision, as you seem to imply.

If morality is rationally binding on all persons, then moral principles are not a matter of decision: if it is not rationally binding on all persons, then everything is permitted because nothing is forbidden.

[Velociryx]

Thanks Monk....and here's hoping my head stays firmly attached to my neck for at least a few more years.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Well Ag...what can I say but that I strongly disagree with this proposed society's views about "fairness" and would most certainly not sit idly by and allow them to be imposed on me. If you wanna, hey....have fun. As for me....see you on the other side, I reckon.



-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

time to go take in a movie, so if I'm slow to respond, don't think you chased me off....

-=Vel=-

[Flubber]

Wel I am glad I missed most of this sidetrack



My view on this all

1. I haven't attacked what "communists" think since there is too much variation in that-- I have attacked Kid's views here on a number of grounds which I can summarize as follows

a)his system restricts personal freedoms to an extent unacceptable to me

b) I simply don't think strict histypr of equality of condition can work-- I think it kills initiative and hard work and in the end will be less efficient

c) any system that requires violent suppression of dissent is questionable to me. Add hte requiremnet taht there be worldwide implementation and we are talking pipe-dream


2. Finally kids views are not at all fleshed out or complete. There are inconsistencies and gaps on some pretty basic stuff. He seems to enjoy flipflopping.

3. Kid's magical "we". he uses that pronoun frequently when referring to the decison makers. I could never get him to specify who the "we' were beyonf the idea that they were the planners. ( To me they sounded like an elite.

4. The democracy question-- kid claimed in various posts that his regime would be democratic but then in others he specified courses of action that would be inconsistent with conventional ideas of democracy.



I am a capitalist.... I believe in a REGULATED free market .. .. but I also believe in demodracy and if a majority of folks moved things into things I personally don't like, I would live with that. Thats democracy.

I also believe in the social welfare net. I think its a necessary part of seeing people enjoy certain basic standards of living. I believe we should strive toward equality of opportunity--

I don't think equality of condition works . . . First off, some people want less stuff than others .. . why should they have to work more than they wish to so that they can attain more assets than they want. Why can't a competent person be lazy if they want and are willing to live with the lesser income. Also, the converse . .. some people are more thrifty, or consume less or whatever and will always acquire more stuff than someone else. Without constant redistribution, Someone will become more "wealthy" than others

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Spiffor

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.

Then it is the Commie's job to correct those misrepresentations.

Not ***** and whine because they are misrepresented.

If they are misrepresented, it's the fault of the presenter not the presentee.........

Unless, in the case of CurtSibling, they are being misrepresented on purpose.

Then I understand why they would give up.

But, if they can't get their ideas across to people like me, how is their revolution ever going to work. Non-commies won't allow their revolution to take place.

The worker won't rise up for someone he doesn't understand.

ACK!

[Tuberski]

Damn, I'm good.

Everytime I post in this thread it goes dead.

ACK!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I observe that the capitalists do not have a monopoly on generalizations.

That's correct.

It seems that capitalists have a monopoly on misunderstanding. Most, if not all, people arguing for capitalism on Poly doesn't understand communism at all, or have a badly distorted view of it.

Originally posted by Velociryx
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?

Let me just take this "shameless exploiters" as an example. Capitalism works by exploiting the lower class (the proletariat). If you support capitalism, it follows that you have absolutely no problem with such exploitations.

[Tuberski]

And how does Communism change this?

ACK!

[Alexander's Horse]

I really doubt people like Marx would make the same critique of capitalism today.

The working conditions of ordinary people have improved immensely in developed countries since the 19th century when Marx was writing.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I really doubt people like Marx would make the same critique of capitalism today.

The working conditions of ordinary people have improved immensely in developed countries since the 19th century when Marx was writing.

I agree with you that the working conditions had greatly advanced, mostly caused by the mere threat of a communist revolution.

The thing is, the very core mode of wealth accumulation of capitalists (the ones who own means of production, not their supporters) has not changed.

[Velociryx]

Flubber...yep, I was flying solo there for a while, but that's cool...the thread seems to have slowed to a crawl again.

Tubes....excellent point, and one that ties in with UR's comments.

UR....IF there is widespread misunderstanding of the Great Red Machine, whose fault do you suppose that is?

Kid calls himself a communist, and is preaching an ideology...a plan for a highly centralized utopia that bears at least a passing (very passing) resemblence to communism itself.

And yet, it wasn't until VERY late in the discussion that ANY communist stood up and pointed out that what kid was espousing was NOT communism.

If you guys can't get together on what you believe (I mean, even in broad terms)...if you present an odd patchwork quilt of contrasting ideas AND ideals to the people on the outside, such that even YOU can barely make sense of it, how on earth do you ever expect your movement to succeed?

So far, about the only things I can get more than three reds to agree on are these:

1) The "old style centralism" is definitely out (read: Stalin, et. al)
2) Free Market is bad
3) Something amorphous about exploitation
4) Interest rates = big no no.

Other than that....you guys are going a bazillion different directions, and this does not a cohesive ideology make.

At least capitalists have the basics in common with each other. True, the social safety net is bigger or smaller in some countries. Fewer or more regulations, but the basics are, in fact, intact.

You guys can't even decide that much. State or No-State? Global or Non-Global? Central planning or highly de-centralized? You don't know!

Want a different answer? It's as simple as asking a different red!

On the other hand, if you ask questions of capitalists, by and large you'll get eerily similar answers, and THAT, I think, more than anything else, is why you see greater cohesion among the capitalist crowd.

We're all speaking pretty much the same language, but with you guys. You've got everything from near-anarchy to spacebots on the darkside of the moon.

Can't get much cohesion out of that, non?

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Oh, and Ag...one more before I turn in.

Fairness can't be decided?

I guess we'd better dash off a memo to that effect to King Solomon...

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon
If morality is rationally binding on all persons, then moral principles are not a matter of decision: if it is not rationally binding on all persons, then everything is permitted because nothing is forbidden.

[Kidlicious]

Agathon is my hero.