Define communism for dum 'ol Lancer

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I'd surely be placed in a re-education camp, assuming I wasn't euthanized or something, so that I could be taught the glories of all that was to come.

Who cares? This isn't about you or me. It's about economic systems. If you want to talk about how communism and capitalism works for you then fine, but it won't be relevent. We are talking about how it works or would work worldwide.

[Velociryx]

Who cares? This isn't about you or me. It's about economic systems. If you want to talk about how communism and capitalism works for you then fine, but it won't be relevent. We are talking about how it works or would work worldwide.

Answer: It'll work world-wide the same way it works on me, the individual. Which is to say, poorly, if at all.

That was easy enough.

You seem entirely caught up with looking at the big picture, and if you're into that, fine and dandy, but the big picture is made up of lossa little pictures. In fact, the little pictures (how systems impact individuals) is more relevant than the big picture, because we all ARE, in fact, individuals.

To say otherwise, to reduce the individual to the point of irrelevancy is but another indicator of your mindset. Let's see now...perfect equality, everyone equal, everyone the same, individuals don't matter....yep...that really IS starting to sound a lot like the Borg.

You still don't get it, do you?

And I though Ag did for a while, but clearly not.

Nonetheless, you guys keep huffing and puffing, posting your angry little rants about how unfair the system is here, trying your best not to think about the fact that you're posting from computers, on the internet, both of which involve multiple channels of the great engine of capitalism.

That must gnaw at you most of all, yes?

I wonder, if the tables were turned...if communists were in power world wide, would they be as benevolent hosts to capitalist ideas as we are to yours?

Given your restrictive ideology....I doubt it.

I doubt it very much.

-=Vel=-

EDIT: And Mr. Fun....thank you.

[Velociryx]

There's just as many people who aren't good at it or unlucky. You can't have winners without losers.

In futures markets...true.

In the economy in general...false.

This assumes that economics is a zero-sum game, which is so blatantly wrong that a first WEEK econ student can correct you. And you TAUGHT this stuff? Poor kids....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

You can't be serious. No one wants to waste their time, because of the way he debates.

The way *I* debate. I see.

Truth telling is not allowed then? Being honest and not pulling punches is frowned upon. (Heavens no! Let us instead focus on the very WORST CASE possible for capitalism, while glossing over the attrocities of our own proposed ideology...that's what we want! That makes us look right.....uh huh)

Gee...my sincerest apologies (and forgive the sarcasm too!).

Actually, the more I contemplate it, that's pretty funny!

And by the way Kid, how's the search coming for those quotes of mine (you know, my capitalist equivalents to you're forced labor camps and stuff?) to REALLY put the nail in my coffin?

Not so good, huh?

Figured not, which was why you hadn't brough it up again.

Have a good morning.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
You seem entirely caught up with looking at the big picture, and if you're into that, fine and dandy, but the big picture is made up of lossa little pictures. In fact, the little pictures (how systems impact individuals) is more relevant than the big picture, because we all ARE, in fact, individuals.

That's as idiotic as looking at one tree in the forest and assuming that all of the trees in the forest are just like that one.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
In futures markets...true.

In the economy in general...false.

The only way earings show up in stock is if there's a stock dividend. And even in that case the price of a share of stock does not increase except where there is an increased demand for the stock. Earnings only effect the price of stock by either increasing or decreasing the demand for the stock. They are distributed through dividends.

[Velociryx]

That's as idiotic as looking at one tree in the forest and assuming that all of the trees in the forest are just like that one.


But is that not your goal? Perfect equality (having read your posts repeatedly, I know this is what you want, both in condition and in outcome)....in order to attain it, the above statement MUST be true.

Further, while you cannot know every detail about the forest by examining the trees individually, there are a couple of points to remember:
a) There would be no forest if not for the trees.
b) as a collection of like objects, generally, what's bad for one is bad for all (ie, fire...it burns one tree, it burns many trees)

Your approach is bass-ackwards, in attempting to take a broad overview and apply it to all individuals that make up the group. The more sensible approch is to start with the individual and scale up to the group. This is true for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that human beings do not exist to "service" society as a whole....no matter how many times you repeat it to yourself, it still doesn't make it true.

-=Vel=-
EDIT: as to the second part...you answered your own question, so no need for me to comment.

[Kidlicious]

What's the point in trying?

[Velociryx]

Vel: And Kid....not delusional...hell, you've said yourself on NUMEROUS occassions that you want to force people to work. You've mentioned forcibly relocating families, telling people WHERE they'll work, and on what project, and a host of other things.

Kid's Reply: This is a lot better, because you don't have such poor allocation of labor. People are trained for the job that will contribute the most to society and they will work where they can contribute the most to society. Everyone benefits. It's much better than the chaos of capitalism where no one really know where the **** to go and what the **** to do half the time.

Bolded for emphasis.
Obvious conclusion: Kid and I have differing priorities. Whereas my focus is on the individual first, his (and by the nature of communism, one must assume, communists in general) is on the group first. This is a fundamentally irreconcilable difference, and the chief reason these debates never go anywhere...

-=Vel=-

[Agathon]

The way *I* debate. I see.

Yes. It's called attacking a "straw man", and "failing to argue".

[Velociryx]

Oh...Ok Mr. "AI and IT".

You're right. It's obviously a straw man to poke fun at your beloved hero, Marx.

It's obviously a straw man to refute the way he defines capital, and thereby, refute all the thinking that stems from that leaky, century old definition that you've built your entire religion around.

It's wrong to point to the system that's working, and openly question why ANYONE would want to go back for another try at the system that's failed so spectacularly in the past, or to wonder aloud at how we, the People, could possibly be expected to trust the reds to "get it right this time" AFTER such vast failures.

Yeah...I see what you mean. There's really not a lot to argue about! Just a lot of excuses from one side and a lot of "the way things really work" from the other.

-=Vel=-

[Agathon]

It's obviously a straw man to refute the way he defines capita

There's a difference between refutation and attempted refutation and the sarcastic dismissal which you trade in.

And there's another straw man in your last post. Why do you assume that all communists believe in the Soviet way of doing things? There wasn't even unanimity on that point while the USSR was in it's prime. Moreover, you just ignore the fundamental Marxist claim that with technological changes come the possibility of radical economic changes.

But no, that would be to have a serious discussion about Marxism which you seem determined to avoid at all costs..

And if you believe the world economy works now given the abject misery of so many human beings, there is clearly something wrong with you.

[Ned]

Agathon, et al., may I conjecture that there might be an "invisible hand" working in favor of a communism-type society in the future. It lies in the idea that production is so great that everything is essentially free and most people really don't have to work to live well. Well, there are today factories in Japan and elsewhere that produce "widgets" by the thousands per days with only a handful workers whose only job is to man the robots and correct any problems that might arise. Imagine if almost all production of manufactured goods were similarly automated?

In such a society, I could see the government providing everyone a guarantee of a basic standard of living at very little relative cost. Work in "production" type jobs would not be necessary except for the robot repair designers and repair folks, and even these jobs could be part time. Most people could spend most of their time doing what they wanted instead of working.

Now this where we are headed under today's advanced capitalistic/welfare states. Nothing radical needs to be done to fundamentally alter their trajectories in order to achieve the projected nirvana.

Is there a fundamental problem with this future vision (achieved by the invisible hand and not by coercision) which is almost identical with the vision promoted by Marx, et al.?

[Velociryx]

quote:
It's obviously a straw man to refute the way he defines capita


There's a difference between refutation and attempted refutation and the sarcastic dismissal which you trade in.
Sorry...that's about all Marx is worth. I know you don't like to hear that, but he's old news. REALLY old news.

And there's another straw man in your last post. Why do you assume that all communists believe in the Soviet way of doing things? There wasn't even unanimity on that point while the USSR was in it's prime. Moreover, you just ignore the fundamental Marxist claim that with technological changes come the possibility of radical economic changes.
When and where in my last post did I mention the USSR? I'd love to see that quote! But yes, I did mention the track records of the comrades who came before you in general, and in looking at their track record...well, you already know what we find, don't you? Not much need to rehash that, especially since it makes you uncomfortable.
Suffice it to say, however, that their failings impact your chances today, because, quite frankly, having seen what your forefathers were capable of, we're categorically unimpressed. All we have are empty-sounding reassurances that "This time, we'll get it right." No specifics, glossing lots of the details over, just generalizations based on principles we already know don't work.
And you really wonder why we doubt?

But no, that would be to have a serious discussion about Marxism which you seem determined to avoid at all costs..
Primarily because there's not enough material to discuss seriously to make it worthwhile.

And if you believe the world economy works now given the abject misery of so many human beings, there is clearly something wrong with you.
And if you believe that the world's misery has cropped up recently enough to be attributed to Capitalism, then you need to open your eyes. Capitalism HAS caused its share. Growth can be painful. If you doubt that, ask any parent who has walked the halls late at night with a child with leg cramps. Just like with the parent up all night with the growing child, however, the solution is not to kill the child to fix the problem (leg cramps). It's as rediculous a solution in that instance as it is in the economic one we're talking about, and yet, it's the one you're supporting, and that makes it....somewhat difficult to have a serious discussion.

-=Vel=-

[Agathon]

Suffice it to say, however, that their failings impact your chances today, because, quite frankly, having seen what your forefathers were capable of, we're categorically unimpressed. All we have are empty-sounding reassurances that "This time, we'll get it right." No specifics, glossing lots of the details over, just generalizations based on principles we already know don't work.
And you really wonder why we doubt?

Blah blah blah...

Same old crap again. Nice straw man....