Define communism for dum 'ol Lancer

[Dis]

what's worse, is I'm not sure if I'm being sarcastic or troll-like in that above post.

It's like that simpsons episode. "Are you being sarcastic dude?" "I don't even know anymore"

It's true. After years of sacastic and troll responses here at Apolyton, I have no idea what I believe anymore.

All I'm saying is I wouldn't mind if rich people gave me checks. You ask if I'm jealous, hell yeah I'm jealous.

[Velociryx]

Excellent post indeed, Dracon!

The only thing I can't quite figure out is if you believe all the things you said you believe....then why are you a member of the communist party?

While it is true that past performance is not a surefire indicator of future performance, history is about the best guide we have with regards to comparing and contrasting the merits of different economic systems, and WHEN we whip them out and compare them, we find one economic system has been a string of unmitigated disasters, while another has been responsible for an unprescedented rise in global standards of living (which is the stated goal, right? Improving the standard of living for the very worst off in a given society?)

Given then, that one system has been a collossal failure, and the other has been working to improve the very thing you seek to improve....I'm not sure I get your present association?

Especially liked your acknowledgement that people and situations and such ARE unequal, and nothing short of a genetics program and the co-option of all children by the state will change that. What I like about our present system is that everyone has opportunities to improve. Equal opportunities? Nope....but everyone HAS them. This has proved to be true both in times of economic plenty AND in times of economic crisis (which we've seen quite a few of). The opportunities may be different during the lean and good times, but that by no means makes them absent.

As for Kid....I really didn't expect a straight answer from you, but that's okay....none is needed.

If you cannot see that if you mean to FORCE your subjects to work in your work camps, EVEN IF you dress it up in sheep's clothing by offering them a small bone, the fact remains that they are not IN aformentioned work camps by choice. The absence of choice = coersion = slavery.

Dodge and wiggle all you want. Your words. Eat 'em.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

re: the market and price determination.

The facts are out there, and for the most part, readily available.

If someone goes into a flea market and pays more for a piece of stereo equipment than he shoulda, that's not my problem, nor my concern...once again, back to those individual choices. A quick trip online, or a talk to someone who knows the equipment, or a subscription to consumer reports (or a combination of all of the above), and a little dash of prudence is generally more than sufficient ammo to go head to head with producers/salesfolks.

If you, as a consumer don't take even the most basic of precautions, that's not something that the PRODUCER can be blamed for.

-=Vel=-

[Sandman]

So regulation is unnecessary?

[Velociryx]

Sandman....of course regulation is necessary (in the same way that we've got regulators, breakers, and switches in the electricity that comes into your home). In fact, I'm ALL FOR fixing the current system.

What is NOT necessary is to rip down a fully functioning, vibrant economic system and replace it with something that has failed every time it's been tried.

Dracon makes several excellent points, but where we begin to disagree is that he refers to the market's invisible hand as a "fairy tale." (in answer to my own claim using that same phrase re: Communism)

For the moment though, sure...let's keep using the same language and call it a fairy tale....the DIFFERENCE is that it's a fairy tale that's working right now, and working like gangbusters.

The Big Red Pony, however, can't make the same claim.

-=Vel=-

[Sandman]

Sandman....of course regulation is necessary (in the same way that we've got regulators, breakers, and switches in the electricity that comes into your home). In fact, I'm ALL FOR fixing the current system.

This is seems to be the opposite of your previous post, where consumers are to blame if they buy shoddy goods. Personally, I'd rather have some regulation, instead of wasting my life gathering 'sufficient ammo to go head to head with producers/salesfolks'.

[Velociryx]

I don't see it as being opposite in the least. Sure, we need regulations on the market. No denying it.

What I'm saying is that it's a "buyer beware" world.

Rules and regulations are fine and dandy, but it's still up to the consumer to either choose to educate himself or not. Usually, we're not talking about some great, vast, lengthy process, either.

If you don't feel like learning about the thing you're buying, then don't expect me to shed too many tears for you if you don't get what you want, or if someone else gets it cheaper.

-=Vel=-

[Odin]

Kid must think it is only slavery when capitalists force you to do something. I'm not letting some "watcher society" control every aspect of my life.

[Velociryx]

Mayhaps, Odin...mayhaps.

I think referring back to his own words is instructive as to the underlying thinking, and we never seem to have a shortage of material. Take this latest post, for example:

Work is a necessity of life, slavery is not. Exploitation is inherent to slavery. I advocate a system where the working class work for themselves.

So...since work is a "necessity of life" it CANNOT be slavery for the state to FORCE you to go to work in a work camp....after all, you own the means of production once you arrive!

Never mind the fact that you have no choice but to comply. Somehow that part of the equation just gets glossed over.

And to date, I've not yet met a capitalist who tried to force me to do anything. It's just a real life game of "the price is right." If the price ain't right, I don't bite. If it is...I do.

On the other hand, I've met a LOT of communists who seem to delight in telling me what I do and don't need, or how they plan to force me to work in one of their slave...erm sorry...labor camps....stuff like that.

There are rare, and very case specific instances where society acts as a more-or-less cohesive whole, but these are not the norm. In the vast majority of cases (day to day life and living), the order of the day is a collection of INDIVIDUALS making their own decisions about their wants and needs, and acting on them to the best of their ability.

And...it works.

-=Vel=-

[Dracon II]

The only thing I can't quite figure out is if you believe all the things you said you believe....then why are you a member of the communist party?

I guess I'm a kneejerk communist.... inequality, privelige and capitalism in general puts me off.

I'm far more sympathetic to the traditional critical analysis of capitalism which has arisen out of the communist/marxist school of thought... so theoretically speaking I err on that side of things.

But when I collect my thoughts and think about the big picture, I come to conclusions that conflict with my emotive responses. I am a communist in that I welcome and yearn for the day when communism as it is dreamed of and as it should be is possible. But currently I don't see how it is...

I think markets are great for economic development & accumulation. The success of Europe over the much larger and more established asian and islamic civilizations is largely due to Europe's general historical predisposition to internal competition and a divided and decentralized political landscape that allowed for supranational markets to form that forced individual political units to facilitate rather than stifle commerce.

However, I think the market, with its dependence on sustained growth and expansion, is predisposed to short run profit at the expense of future prosperity, and that it can have a chaotic and corrupting effect on the cultures and civilizations it touches.

Moreover, it creates a cyclical trend of crisis/recovery that stresses the social fabric. And it is not an inherently rational system of distribution. Resources don't necessarily go where they are needed, they go where they fetch the best prices. Oil is a classic example of this. Much has been said of the role of China and India in creating the sharp spikes in the price of oil in recent months; however, if it weren't for the disproportionate consumption of the United States, this would clearly not be a problem. Clearly, the relative populations of China and the US does not correlate in their respective consumption of oil, and I can't help but think that the future development of other countries (which will require greater oil consumption) has been hampered by the disproportionate consumption of developed nations.
Of course, if Oil prices remain high, the market will raise incentive for R&D into alternative fuel sources, but it seems to me that the market is too much of a reactive force rather than a proactive one in this respect. I don't want to have to wait for a crisis in order for the market to correct it. Crises should be averted before the fact, and that requires planning and investment that is not necessarily cost-effective in the short run.
I have an instrumental view of markets. They are tools to be used where it is prudent to do so. They are a means, not an end... and they certainly should not be the ultimate determinant of social organization and production. There needs to be an external mechanism by which markets are rationally guided and regulated, and that has the right to determine, with recourse to democratic process, the scope and the limits to commodification.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dracon II
And it [capitalism] is not an inherently rational system of distribution. Resources don't necessarily go where they are needed, they go where they fetch the best prices.

Dracon, this portion of your post demonstrates your fundamental lack of understanding of economics. Price reflects demand and need better than any guru-developed "need" pulled from thin air (or from the other place we know so well). It is precisely the attitude you expresse here that is the fundamental problem with bureacracy planned supply and distribution. Gurus always get it wrong.

[Velociryx]

Not always correct, Brother Ned.

Don't misunderstand me, I agree with the principle of what you are saying entirely, however, it IS true that there are some people whose needs are both great and immediate, but who lack any means at all to pay FOR their needs (witness the rampant starvation in various African nations, for example). I believe THESE are the very people the Communists seek to reach out to, and they are the SAME people that WE should always extend a hand to.

Now, if I know Kidicious, he'll be quick to trumpet loudly that the ONLY reason I would advocate feeding the starving in Africa is to keep them alive and marginalized so I, and others like me, can continue to shamelessly exploit them (yada yada yada, insert several references about capitalist pig-dogs here), but I say that is pure rubbish.

Further, I do not believe that Dracon's response will be even remotely similar to Kid's, because I sense a kindred spirit in him.

True, we have opted to approach the same fundamental problems from diametric positions, but that in no way detracts from the nobility of either of our intentions, nor the driving forces that motivate us.

I see the capitalist as an enabler. A creator of wealth and opportunity.

An artist, if you will, whose canvas is the world we live in.

Are there bad, dark, hideous artists among us?

Bet your arse there are.

Are there shining beacons of hope?

As ever, yes!

Capitalism CAN destroy. It CAN be used to amass huge, selfish fortunes for an elite few. It CAN be used to subjugate others....all of this is true.

It's also true that the very SAME electricity that brings light in our homes can be used to torture and kill.

Does this mean, then, that we should unbuild the power generating stations?

Of course not, and anyone who suggessted such a thing in our modern society would be laughed at quite heartily.

Likewise, to pursue a course of action that actively seeks to dismantle the greatest engine of wealth generation the planet has ever seen because there are problems at the margins is an equal folly.

No...I contend that the superior approach is to let the few bad seeds do their thing....on balance, it's a small price to pay for the wealth of opportunity the rest create (and the bad seeds too, although their personal greed somewhat blunts their efforts, it is true).

And in the process of creating opportunities and expanding the economic pie to greater and greater heights, we will continue to bouy an increasing number of people out of the poverty that many nations have known for generations, and into an era of plenty.

Equal....as in....perfectly, exactly equal in every respect?

Nope.

But valid (and quite wonderful) advancement nonetheless, with continuing opportunities to improve, and with each man and woman setting their OWN goals and making their OWN decisions, each will get there in their own way and time.

To the utterly destitute whose need is both immediate and dire, we owe it to them, as fellow human beings, to extend a hand in offered aid no matter what the political climate. Those who are fortunate enough to reap the largest benefits of the great engine that is capitalism are the ones in the best position to make a true DIFFERENCE. To really become heroes, in every sense of the word, and THAT is a noble calling indeed.

Of course, we're doing some of that NOW, but we could be doing more, always.

And then there's the thonry problem of tin-pot dictators who confiscate what we DO send, in order to feed their army, or, rather than give it to their own starving masses, leave it to rot in port, but those are issues that diverge a bit too far afield for the present thread.....

-=Vel=-

[Ned]

Vel, while there truly are victims of famines, war and catastrophe's, and we should help them, closer inspection of systematic starvation will usely reveal bad "planning." Price controls on food are the norm in Africa. And don't forget how Stalin deliberately starved the people of Ukraine in order to impose "planning." While I might have supported food aid to them at the time, I would have also back a war of liberation against the kindly Uncle Joe. But at the time, we know, the NYTimes was singing the praises of the USSR, describing the murder and chaos of the USSR as a "workers" paradise. How can we fight oppression in the world when our leading papers are against capitalism and freedom?

[Velociryx]

Hey, I agree with you for the most part....Sam Kennison said it best, "the best thing we could send to the people in those $hithole nations of the world is not to send them food, but LUGGAGE!"

And the tin-pot dictators of the world are the root cause of just silly amounts of starvation. Bad planning accounts for some...short-sightedness for some...and natural disaster for a goodish chunk.

However...the root causes are relatively unimportant when it comes to life and death situations such as these, there at the margins of the system, where the only consideration must be delivering needed supplies to ensure the continued survival of these unfortunate fellow human beings. Not for political favors down the line...not in exchange for this or that demand, but simply because they deserve to BE.

With regards to the schism you mentioned....the only answer is "as best we can." For if we curtail the freedoms of the press, we start down a path that can only have one end point, and makes us no better than the abominations we fight against.

-=Vel=-

PS to Dracon: With regards to your comments on the market providing "reactive" responses to looming crisis rather than a proactive stance...yes and no.

On the one hand, the simple market mechanism is exactly as you describe it, however, already, and even now, the smart money IS currently pouring money into developing alternatives.

Cars powered on nothing but compressed air are currently being built in Spain. GM has announced an ambitious plan to bring us mass-produced Hydrogen cells by 2020, the price of solar and wind generation have dropped manifold, thanks to wide-spread acceptance and increasing (though still miniscule, compared to what it could be) use. So...I cannot say that I agree with your assessment that capitalists only react, rather than pro-act...seems there's an awful lot of money being poured into alternative fuels, and we're not in gas "crunch time" yet...

-v.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Dracon, this portion of your post demonstrates your fundamental lack of understanding of economics. Price reflects demand and need better than any guru-developed "need" pulled from thin air (or from the other place we know so well). It is precisely the attitude you expresse here that is the fundamental problem with bureacracy planned supply and distribution. Gurus always get it wrong.

This post and the one after it show how little you know about economics Ned. Prices have to be controled in order to maintain a stable supply of things like food. Wildly fluctuating prices cause massive suffering. When the price goes up the consumers suffers, and when the price comes down the farmers suffer. It's a good example of the chaos of the free market.