 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:17
|
|
Why do you assume I'm a violent man?
Short answer, I don't.
Long answer: But you worship at the altar of an inherently violent ideology, and as a follower, it would turn you into what was necessary for "La Revolution" to succeed.
I say this because:
1) Every major communist revolution has been bathed in blood. This tells me that there's a real problem with the methodology making the transition from small scale to large.
2) I have often asked for particulars regarding how things will be different "next time" assuming of course, there is a next time. How will the kinder, gentler Red leadership ensure that the next revolution is not just more of the same. No one seems to know. Given this, it is logical to expect....more of the same.
3) There is no room for dissenting opinion in your "religion." You require global implementation for a system which has never succeeded anywhere but at the micro level. It has never been demonstrated that your proposed system is scalable, but there is considerable evidence that it is not.
4) The political structure of your idealized utopia leaves a HUGE power vacuum that WILL BE....not *might be* but WILL BE exploited (rather like it has been exploited by the likes of Mao, Stalin, Lenin, etc) to create a dictatorial state, rather than the on-paper utopia where everyone joins hands and sings Kumbayah, and life is grand. Human nature. Of course, no one seems to have any information on particulars of how this will be gotten around either.
Conclusion: Since no one has any specifics on how things will be different, we can expect more of the same.
That means familiar methodologies.
That means "converting" people at the barrel of a gun, "re-education camps" to convince people who don't believe that they're being exploited to "see the light" etc.
In short. Violence.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
You don't care about that. You only care about losing your status. |
two things
1. You have very little idea about what I care about.
2. Status ? What status? In thses debates most of what I care about is having the freedom to make certain choices . .. oh ya and I want to get the most value for my own labour that I can ( what the market will pay)
Other than that, I oppose the absolutism that you exhibit on so many issues. Economic issues and societal behaviors are complex and nuanced. Its never as simple as "capitalists pollute" or "Growth Always means more pollution".
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Long answer: But you worship at the altar of an inherently violent ideology, and as a follower, it would turn you into what was necessary for "La Revolution" to succeed. |
Short answer: violence is a necesscity because the bourgeoisie will not give up power without a fight. If they are willing to step down peacefully, violence can be avoided. However, such is not the case.
Let me ask you this question: the US Independence War was very violent, does that make you a violent man?
Last edited by Urban Ranger on 09-12-2004 at 21:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
It's not going to work. People need to be obligated to do their share. A significant number of people are not going to make the necessary sacrifices if those sacrifices aren't going to make a difference. That's not rational behavior. Heroic, but not rational. |
Actually it is rational. People do not ALWAYS choose economics as the sole motivator. As an example, Shareholders of a couple of North American companies pretty much forced those companies to exit from certain African nations due to the human rights situation there. The operations were immensely profitable yet the shareholders voted with something other than their wallet.
Who do you think make up the shareholders, directors and officers of a company anyway? DING DING DING-- People !!! All of whom would prefer to breathe clean air and drink clean water. All of them have an interest in reducing pollution. The key is to make enough of them see that interest as outweighing their economic interest.
Also as legal counsel to a big corporation, I can tell you that many corporations are very concerned about their corporate reputation. It goes beyond mere compliance with regulations and into how the corporation is perceived. Its the reason why they get involved in creating parks or other environmentally friendly activities despite their being no REQUIRMENT to do these things.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
Urban Ranger
My examples were ALL from oil and gas exploration development companies. "Sales" is not an issue as they sell ALL that they produce, ALWAYS.
You are being as absolutist as kid if you can't see that some shareholders will have concerns other than ONLY the bottom line. These are PEOPLE . .. . Now the bottom line matters and for most people it will be the major concern but for MOST people its NOT the only concern.
Think of of it this way . Imagine a product that is needed regularly for $1. Imagine it was associated with major pollution or child labor or something. Most people would buy it if they needed it. Now imagine a "green version" for 1.05. I imagine most people would spend the 1.05 if aware of the differentiation. But ask them for $5 or $10 for the green version and you would get fewer and fewer willing to pay THAT cost of going green.
Its the same with "Buy American" and " Buy canadian" initiatives. Lots of people will buy local if the cost difference is not too bad but then even some of the most ardent opponents of "outsourcing' will buy the imported product when the price gap gets too large for them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
1) Every major communist revolution has been bathed in blood. This tells me that there's a real problem with the methodology making the transition from small scale to large. |
Untrue. The Paris Commune was not bathed in blood, though it was drowned in blood. The Finnish and Hungarian Revolutions were the same. The Cuban Revolution bathed in no blood, unless you count the 500 executions of torturers and murderers from Batista's old National Guard. Even the Russian Revolution itself was largely bloodless, except for the massacre of several hundred Reds by the Whites in Moscow in 1917. The Nicaraguan Revolution didn't bathe in blood. The Bolivian Revolution didn't bathe in blood.
quote:
2) I have often asked for particulars regarding how things will be different "next time" |
How can you give particulars to a hypothetical situation?
quote:
3) There is no room for dissenting opinion in your "religion." |
Do you notice me and kid agreeing on everything?
quote:
4) The political structure of your idealized utopia leaves a HUGE power vacuum that WILL BE....not *might be* but WILL BE exploited (rather like it has been exploited by the likes of Mao, Stalin, Lenin, etc) to create a dictatorial state, rather than the on-paper utopia where everyone joins hands and sings Kumbayah, and life is grand. |
Uhm, what power vacuum? What structure have we laid out? There is no blue print for a the revolutionary state. We could have a series of concentrict legistlatures, as Cuba, or a Federal system like the U.S., and probably a lot of different combinations in between. As for guarantees, you have none. You have no guarantee that tomorrow, the Pentagon won't decide that Bush is hurting the Republic and decide to overthrow him. You have no guarantee that Christians won't decide to ignore the First Amendment and set up a theocracy.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, Lenin was no dictator. Dictators can't be overruled by their legislatures, and Lenin frequently was. Dictators dictate, hence the name. Lenin ran Russian only because the Soviets agreed with him more often than not, and on the biggest question of all, his succession, they ignored him. Some dictator? 
quote:
Human nature. Of course, no one seems to have any information on particulars of how this will be gotten around either. |
Who's trying to get around human nature? We just don't accept that human nature is as evil as you make it out to be. Humans are what they make themselves. If it's more advantageous to be cooperative, they will be cooperative. It its more advantageous to be competitive, they will be competitive. What's to get around?
quote:
That means "converting" people at the barrel of a gun, "re-education camps" to convince people who don't believe that they're being exploited to "see the light" etc. |
And the leap of logic you always make. You have a characture of socialism in your head. You always set up this strawman of socialism from the fevered imaginations of Hoover and attack it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:17
|
|
UR:
Short answer: violence is a necesscity because the bourgeoisie will not give up power without a fight. If they are willing to step down peacefully, violence can be avoided. However, such is not the case.
Let me ask you this question: the US Independence War was very violent, does that make you a violent man?
You mean, they will protect that which is rightfully theirs?
You bet they will. If your aim is to TAKE, then yes, I fear you must generally take by force. One of the lovely undertones of your "Revolution."
Che:
Every major communist revolution
Of which there have been two.
Hungary wasn't one. Paris wasn't one, and nor was Finland.
Russia was, and I'd hardly call the Russian death toll insignificant. Nor China's.
Again, small scale, the idea has merits. Large scale, it collapses in on itself.
How can you give particulars to a hypothetical situation?
How can you not? You're the one pushing the revolution. If you don't plan to convert people in the manner I described above, do you not suppose it might be a good idea to try to convince us in other ways? Perhaps by....telling us precisely what you mean to do? Lay out a plan....demonstrate how it'll be different this time around, maybe?
Do you notice me and kid agreeing on everything?
Indeed...and therein lies another problem. Global implementation is the goal, right? Well...global means you get one shot. One plan. Since you can't implement both your plan AND Kid's plan on a global scale, mayhaps a good beginning point would be to come to some terms about exactly what the plan is? Preferablyl BEFORE day one of said Revolution? I would think this would do a great deal to minimize internal power struggles (more bloodshed), and streamline a plan of action, no?
Uhm, what power vacuum?
Exactly my point. With NOTHING specific proposed and a gazillion different "utopias" proposed....yeah. Power vaccuum. People will...as people do, compete for the top slot. Historically, that has equated to....you guessed it...more bloodshed.
Who's trying to get around human nature? We just don't accept that human nature is as evil as you make it out to be. Humans are what they make themselves. If it's more advantageous to be cooperative, they will be cooperative. It its more advantageous to be competitive, they will be competitive. What's to get around?
Let's see...you don't have a solid plan. To quote from a popular song, "You say you want a revolution" but you don't know any of the particulars, because, as you say, the revolution isn't here yet. That smacks of a dangerous ignorance of both history and human nature. Proceed with extreme caution, *especially* since you mean to dictate my future with your revolution.
And the leap of logic you always make. You have a characture of socialism in your head. You always set up this strawman of socialism from the fevered imaginations of Hoover and attack it.
Socialism and Communism....two very different words, Comrade. Two related, but different beasts. There are nations in Europe which have socialist leanings and yet, maintain the spirit and essence of the Free Market.
Very different from what you describe, yes?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-12-2004 04:58
) - it makes about as much sense to reward nonpolluters as it does to pay people not to grow food.
Lemme percolate for a bit.
|