 |
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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".
quote:
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
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
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=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
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=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
'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=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
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=-
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-08-2004 05:05
Thanks Monk....and here's hoping my head stays firmly attached to my neck for at least a few more years.
ACK!
|