 |
| |
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Dead wrong. My argument is that Marx is really good at bait and switch, and even better at creating his own internal logic, which works just fine till you take it off of the paper and put it into practice in the real world. |
But as has been pointed out to you, this is a straw man. A lot of communists would in good faith either dispute the claim that such "societies" were really communist, or would assert that the material and social conditions for the communist society do not yet exist.
Your reponses to those claims appear – and I say "appear" because it is hard to wade through the muck – to be that you claim that in the first case they are being dishonest and it was really communism after all, and in the second case just to ignore the argument.
Many communists have not supported the so-called "communist" societies. That is an established fact. Like any other ideology, there is a lot of internal dissent and factionalism.
In the second case you appear, if anything, to rest on some claim about human nature, and its incompatibility with anything other than markets. This is irrelevant to Marxists, who do not really believe in such a thing. To support their view they could point to all sorts of changes in human values and behaviour (tribal societies; the rise of the nuclear family; attitudes towards infants and towards judicial punishments being good examples) to which your response appears to be to put your hands over your ears and simply deny it.
Other than that your responses seem merely personal – i.e. "I wouldn't like it and I'd revolt". Frankly, I don't believe that you would, and, in any case, most people are sheeplike on such issues anyway. The others can go to prison.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
But as has been pointed out to you, this is a straw man. A lot of communists would in good faith either dispute the claim that such "societies" were really communist, or would assert that the material and social conditions for the communist society do not yet exist.
1) It's not a straw man just because you don't care for the argument.
2) It does not matter that YOU or your fellow Reds (or even all of them, for that matter) today adopt a "revisionist history" approach to your own past. The leaders of former (failed) revolutions WERE communists, by their own decree and actions. That's how they styled themselves. That's how the world referred to them.
3) If the technologic sophistication does not yet exist to create a communist society, then said society can rightly be said to take its place in the realm of science fiction, and there's really nothing to debate, except in terms of amorphous, "what if" fantasy-style musings (ie - it is impossible to hold a "serious debate" on any sci-fi topic...geeks at star trek conventions discussing warp drive or the klingon language notwithstanding...
Your reponses to those claims appear – and I say "appear" because it is hard to wade through the muck – to be that you claim that in the first case they are being dishonest and it was really communism after all, and in the second case just to ignore the argument.
To re-iterate. I DO believe it's dishonest, yes, but that is just as irrelevant to whether or not your forefathers were communists, as the revisionism itself. Of course they were. What amuses me is all the time and energy spent debating this and/or distancing yourself from your own forefathers. I like to call it "The Red Chicken Dance."
Many communists have not supported the so-called "communist" societies. That is an established fact. Like any other ideology, there is a lot of internal dissent and factionalism.
Which only reinforces my point. Thank you. However, having said that, all communists have a core set of ideas in common with each other. Where you are different is generally at the margins (well, some of you are WAY different, like Kid with his work camps, and whoever it was a few years ago with his space-bots on the dark side of the moon...but for the most part...pretty similar, with shading differences).
Ergo...since the basic STRUCTURES remain the same as the former attempts, and seeing the RESULTS of the former attempts, and having only glowing, glossed-over, malformed plans (or none at all) about how to EXECUTE the revolution....yes....I think it quite reasonable to be:
a) hostile to an idea that has failed repeatedly
and
b) skeptical of those who claim to be able to magically cure the failures of previous attempts, but who are sketchy on the details.
In short, a dog is a dog. You can dress it up, call it something else, put a rocket on its back if you wanna, but at the end of the day, it's still....a dog.
In the second case you appear, if anything, to rest on some claim about human nature, and its incompatibility with anything other than markets.
Untrue. I have never made the claim that markets were the defining parameter for, and ultimate expression of every fascet of human nature. A part of me is tempted to cry "strawman" there and pout about it, but I'll refrain, and simply restate the position. Markets exist because WE exist. We need them. We use them. If you outlaw them or put your hands over your eyes and pretend they don't exist, they'll spring up anyways. You can't stop them. You can't defeat them. Even if you give control of every parcel of land, factory, and tool that could be used to "exploit" to the state, you wouldn't stamp it out, and it's utterly useless to try.
We are. The Market is. Again, there's nothing to debate here. You can't POINT to a modern society that exists without markets. Probably, you can't point to a primative society that didn't have SOME kind of market (ie - trade with a neighboring tribe...SOMETHING).
That's because, while not defining OF the human condition, it's a part OF the human condition. So if the destruction of the market is your goal, then communism will work just fine so long as you don't introduce any humans to the equation. Maybe that's the goal? I don't pretend to know.
This is irrelevant to Marxists, who do not really believe in such a thing.
Which is why he's such a good fairy tale. But no matter...we don't lose much sleep on this side of the fence worrying about what Marx thinks.
To support their view they could point to all sorts of changes in human values and behaviour (tribal societies; the rise of the nuclear family; attitudes towards infants and towards judicial punishments being good examples) to which your response appears to be to put your hands over your ears and simply deny it.
Incorrect. Those things in no way are mutually exclusive of the position I support.
Other than that your responses seem merely personal – i.e. "I wouldn't like it and I'd revolt".
One of our most fundamental differences. I celebrate the Individual first, and the group (societal whole) second (distant second, at that). You (generic you, meaning communists in general) celebrate the group first, while placing the individual subservient to the group.
There's no convincing me that this is anything other than a backwards, outmoded, unnecessary WASTE of a position, just as there's no convincing you to my perspective. I know this. I accept it. All I can say is that IN my point of view, there's room for yours. Not true from the other side of the fence.
Frankly, I don't believe that you would, and, in any case, most people are sheeplike on such issues anyway. The others can go to prison.
Frankly it doesn't matter that you don't believe, and if you don't, then you don't know me very well. Your ideology RELIES on the sheeplike nature of the masses. I'm happy in that regard, to disappoint.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
But as has been pointed out to you, this is a straw man. A lot of communists would in good faith either dispute the claim that such "societies" were really communist, or would assert that the material and social conditions for the communist society do not yet exist.
1) It's not a straw man just because you don't care for the argument. |
No. It's a straw man because it attributes to people you are arguing with positions that they don't hold.
quote:
[2) It does not matter that YOU or your fellow Reds (or even all of them, for that matter) today adopt a "revisionist history" approach to your own past. The leaders of former (failed) revolutions WERE communists, by their own decree and actions. That's how they styled themselves. That's how the world referred to them. |
For the 233rd time. No-one cares about names – generic names mask substantial specific differences. I can easily accept that they were communists of a sort and deny that they are the same sort of communist as me.
Are you saying that every person who deems themself a "capitalist" has anything more in common with the other "capitalists" than a commitment to market mechanisms of some description and some extent.
quote:
3) If the technologic sophistication does not yet exist to create a communist society, then said society can rightly be said to take its place in the realm of science fiction, and there's really nothing to debate, except in terms of amorphous, "what if" fantasy-style musings (ie - it is impossible to hold a "serious debate" on any sci-fi topic...geeks at star trek conventions discussing warp drive or the klingon language notwithstanding... |
This is a blatant non sequitur.
The technological sophistication does not yet exist to construct a computer that is 100 times the speed of the current fastest computer. That does not mean that any thoughts about what it may enable us to do are "amorphous" or "merely sceptical".
Similarly, in 1950 space travel was not yet possible. To be sure there was a lot of science fiction about space travel, but there was also a lot of serious thought directed to real possibilities.
quote:
To re-iterate. I DO believe it's dishonest, yes, but that is just as irrelevant to whether or not your forefathers were communists, as the revisionism itself. Of course they were. What amuses me is all the time and energy spent debating this and/or distancing yourself from your own forefathers. I like to call it "The Red Chicken Dance." |
Which only reinforces my point. Thank you. However, having said that, all communists have a core set of ideas in common with each other. Where you are different is generally at the margins (well, some of you are WAY different, like Kid with his work camps, and whoever it was a few years ago with his space-bots on the dark side of the moon...but for the most part...pretty similar, with shading differences).[/q]
This is funny. Any familiarity with communist schisms would disabuse you of this ridiculous notion. What about the anarchisticallly inclined Reds as opposed to the hardcore statists? You can't accuse the former as a group of supporting the Soviet Union, since many of them were its most vocal critics.
The core conception of communism is public ownership of the means of production. That captures what communists have in common, but does little to prevent there being massive differences between them, which in fact there are.
You are simply wrong Vel. Your position is as ridiculous applied to any generic ideology as it is applied to communism. What you are claiming is the equivalent of saying that all Christians revered the late Pope because they are Christians.
It's a fallacious argument, and you should be ashamed of yourself for giving it.
quote:
Ergo...since the basic STRUCTURES remain the same as the former attempts, and seeing the RESULTS of the former attempts, and having only glowing, glossed-over, malformed plans (or none at all) about how to EXECUTE the revolution....yes.... |
This is hilarious. What you are saying in effect is that if something doesn't work once, you shouldn't try again with a modified version or wait until circumstances are more favourable. No social change would ever have happened (including the transition to capitalism from its forerunners) if people took your position.
quote:
I think it quite reasonable to be:
a) hostile to an idea that has failed repeatedly |
Sure, if you aren't prepared to modify it, or circumstances haven't changed, or if there weren't local problems affecting the implementation the first few times you tried it.
But no one here is asking for Stalinism to be reinstituted.
quote:
b) skeptical of those who claim to be able to magically cure the failures of previous attempts, but who are sketchy on the details. |
Now that is reasonable. But I've already pointed out to you in various threads that the reasons commonly given for the failures of planned economies are often exaggerated rest upon particular historical circumstances that most Marxists believe are just that – i.e. not eternal truths.
quote:
In short, a dog is a dog. You can dress it up, call it something else, put a rocket on its back if you wanna, but at the end of the day, it's still....a dog. |
Yes, but to thrash you with your own metaphor, no-one ever successfully hunted pigs with a Pekinese. I guess that means you believe that pig hunting with dogs is impossible.
quote:
Untrue. I have never made the claim that markets were the defining parameter for, and ultimate expression of every fascet of human nature. A part of me is tempted to cry "strawman" there and pout about it, but I'll refrain, and simply restate the position. Markets exist because WE exist. |
That's a misleading statement. For the vast majority of human history markets did not exist. Markets are sophisticated legal and political creations. For most of human history people have lived in tribal economies.
That's what's in dispute. Stating it as a fundamental claim is begging the question. We certainly don't need them to organize things like policing and health care and other areas of the economy where markets commonly fail.
It's a basic truth of economics that markets can often do more harm than good. Compare the competitive consumption that people currently engage in with potlaches where goods were destroyed and you have a good idea of the sorts of things that many communists find absurd about markets.
So. That does not logically entail that we ought to use them, which is the point under discussion.
quote:
If you outlaw them or put your hands over your eyes and pretend they don't exist, they'll spring up anyways. You can't stop them. You can't defeat them. |
Yes you can. Or at least you can so reduce them to an absurd sideshow that hardly anyone bothers with them. How many ordinary citizens of Canada would choose to replace their public healthcare system with a private market? The fact that even the Conservatives would dare not repeal that shows just how much market thinking on health care has been expunged from Canada. The same goes for most things that are run publicly, like education, where market reforms have been miserable failures.
Many communists simply argue that this should be extended to other areas of the economy for similar reasons. The fact that it hasn't is in many cases due to technological limitations meaning that market systems have an advantage, or in the case of some areas of the economy (like those that deal with competitive consumption), it being the case that market behaviour is essential to that area of the economy, communists would argue that such enterprises are self defeating (as competitive consumption always is for most people) and should simply be abolished for the public good.
quote:
Even if you give control of every parcel of land, factory, and tool that could be used to "exploit" to the state, you wouldn't stamp it out, and it's utterly useless to try. |
That would be enough for me. I don't care if a few disaffected people swap baseball cards. That's small beer.
quote:
We are. The Market is. Again, there's nothing to debate here. You can't POINT to a modern society that exists without markets. Probably, you can't point to a primative society that didn't have SOME kind of market (ie - trade with a neighboring tribe...SOMETHING). |
Tribal societies often tend to trade in terms of fairness rather than "get what you can". It doesn't matter anyway. In tribal times no-one could have pointed to an industrial capitalist system, but that doesn't mean such a thing is impossible.
quote:
That's because, while not defining OF the human condition, it's a part OF the human condition. So if the destruction of the market is your goal, then communism will work just fine so long as you don't introduce any humans to the equation. Maybe that's the goal? I don't pretend to know. |
You're just repeating the point in dispute. That's begging the question.
quote:
Which is why he's such a good fairy tale. But no matter...we don't lose much sleep on this side of the fence worrying about what Marx thinks. |
So, you want to argue with followers of Marx, yet you wish not to take any account of their actual views? Interesting....
quote:
Incorrect. Those things in no way are mutually exclusive of the position I support. |
Sure they are, because market behaviour is one of them. Many people are still uneasy about market behaviour, especially aboriginal peoples, whose cuilture tends to be collectivist.
quote:
One of our most fundamental differences. I celebrate the Individual first, and the group (societal whole) second (distant second, at that). You (generic you, meaning communists in general) celebrate the group first, while placing the individual subservient to the group. |
Not at all. What you really do is celebrate yourself at the expense of other individuals. The communist position on equality is equality of individuals, so what you say is simply false.
In fact, morality demands that we place the interests of others on an equal footing with our own (even Kant agreed to this) – that automatically leads to an egalitarian society of some description, which is why capitalists tend to try to hide behind arguments of economic necessity, because they know that ethically they don't have a leg to stand on.
quote:
There's no convincing me that this is anything other than a backwards, outmoded, unnecessary WASTE of a position, just as there's no convincing you to my perspective. I know this. I accept it. All I can say is that IN my point of view, there's room for yours. Not true from the other side of the fence. |
All I can say is that it's becoming hard to convince me that you're anything more than a rhetorician with a crude understanding of the actual issues. Most of what you have written is blather.
quote:
Frankly it doesn't matter that you don't believe, and if you don't, then you don't know me very well. Your ideology RELIES on the sheeplike nature of the masses. I'm happy in that regard, to disappoint. |
Then it's jail for you with all the other criminals.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid,
I've read it. I've digested it. I've reached the conclusion that it's about a century out of date and largely rubbish. I know you don't like that, cos you hold Big Daddy Marx so near and dear, but that doesn't change my conclusion.
|
That's hard to believe since you don't address any of the points to the theory, and quite frankly you don't understand it.
quote:
And by the way, I'm impressed that you called Stalin a madman. Coming from someone who LIKES the idea of forced work camps, that's significant.
|
Umm... yeah, because requiring people to work for the benefits that they recieve is nothing like murdering millions of people and getting as he put it, "life's greatest pleasure" from it.
Last edited by Kidicious on 27-05-2005 at 00:10
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
No. It's a straw man because it attributes to people you are arguing with positions that they don't hold.
Completely incorrect. If we trace the thread of the conversation back to my comment which spawned the original "Strawman" whine, we find:
My argument is that Marx is really good at bait and switch, and even better at creating his own internal logic, which works just fine till you take it off of the paper and put it into practice in the real world.
A passage which in no way meets the conditions you stated above.
Words. Eaten.
For the 233rd time. No-one cares about names – generic names mask substantial specific differences. I can easily accept that they were communists of a sort and deny that they are the same sort of communist as me.
Is that right? Because unless I'm mistaken, it is team red who trips all over themselves to ASSIGN names to the disasters of the past (calling them anything BUT communism in order to provide some safe distance from them) in order to protect the "good name" of Communism. No...by virtue of your own actions, I daresay you care a great DEAL about names. But of course, only when it works to your advantage.
This is a blatant non sequitur.
The technological sophistication does not yet exist to construct a computer that is 100 times the speed of the current fastest computer. That does not mean that any thoughts about what it may enable us to do are "amorphous" or "merely sceptical".
Similarly, in 1950 space travel was not yet possible. To be sure there was a lot of science fiction about space travel, but there was also a lot of serious thought directed to real possibilities.
It would be if there were any serious thought occurring here to the eventual revolution, but I have asked on numerous occassions for specifics and details about what happens on RevDay1, and so far, I've gotten various versions of "don't worry about that....it'll work this time...we promise." Rather difficult to classify this as "serious thought directed to real possibilities" and my point therefore holds. About all you've been able to do so far is to construct a few pleasant (and some not-so-pleasant) FICTIONS, though I eagerly await some post of real substance in that regard.
What about the anarchisticallly inclined Reds as opposed to the hardcore statists?
Firstly, because the anarchistically inclined Reds are living in a dream world far above and beyond the rest of the Reds, and as such, their musings must be counted as little more than daydreams. The REASON this should be obvious, especially given the failings of previous revolutions, especially when taken together with the non-scalability of communal ideals (which is a longish essay in its own right and I lack the time at present to teach you something you should already know).
What you are saying in effect is that if something doesn't work once, you shouldn't try again with a modified version or wait until circumstances are more favourable. No social change would ever have happened (including the transition to capitalism from its forerunners) if people took your position.
Not so. What I am saying is, in the absence of any semblence of a plan brought forth....in the absence of any details on precisely WHAT will be different, and HOW, and GIVEN the presence of at least some on Team Red arguing from INSANELY totalitarian positions, the only conclusion I am left with is that the differences will be scant indeed.
Given this, it's patently insane to go into something as massive as a social revolution on a global scale with no clear plan, and only a string of failures behind you, and expect an entirely different result.
Why is that so difficult to understand. The burden of proof lies with YOU who want to rip down the existing system. Present some on occassion, and perhaps you'll change a few minds.
But I've already pointed out to you in various threads that the reasons commonly given for the failures of planned economies are often exaggerated rest upon particular historical circumstances that most Marxists believe are just that – i.e. not eternal truths.
Which sounds eerily like "making excuses" if you'll pardon my frankness.
For the vast majority of human history markets did not exist. Markets are sophisticated legal and political creations. For most of human history people have lived in tribal economies.
Markets on the scale we see today are complex as you pointed out, but even the most ancient of civilizations had markets and bazzars where goods were sold and bartered for. It took us scores of centuries to realize that this was just the tip of the iceberg, but we caught on.
So. That does not logically entail that we ought to use them, which is the point under discussion.
Stop us. You can't. You'll never be able to. No matter how tightly you squeeze us, you'll never be able to suppress us.
Tribal societies often tend to trade in terms of fairness rather than "get what you can".
and
Many people are still uneasy about market behaviour, especially aboriginal peoples, whose cuilture tends to be collectivist.
Yes yes...and let us have a look at the mightily successful aboriginal peoples. Their technologic innovation and standard of living is the marvel of the free world. It's good to see a living, breathing example of what you wish to do to the whole of humanity. 'preciate that!
Get it through your heads....communal living works (can work, even then, it is by no means a sure thing) on the micro scale. It is not scalable in its nature WITHOUT the presence of a vast, monolithic state as a pre-requisite, which invariably has a vested interest in its own survival and continuation, which in turn, rattles LOTS of chains on LOTS of ghosts from you past.
Not at all. What you really do is celebrate yourself at the expense of other individuals.
Am I? At who's expense am I celebrating myself? Please, either call them by name, or stop strawmanning...
The communist position on equality is equality of individuals,
If, by equality, you mean "reductionism to the lowest common denominator" then I agree completely.
So, you want to argue with followers of Marx, yet you wish not to take any account of their actual views?
Nope. I have no wish to argue at all. You guys can live in your fantasy world for the rest of your lives if it pleases you. Having read and digested your views, I only stand ready to defend myself from your machinations should your "revolution" ever rear its head.
You're just repeating the point in dispute. That's begging the question.
Dispute? There is no dispute. The market is here. It's working beutifully. (I know, I know, ask the people in the sweat shops in Malaysia....well, your Uncle Marx answered that one for you already, and actually got something right!)
You raise doubts by using badly concocted definitions of capital and inventing entirely new definitions of exploitation. THOSE are the real points of dispute. The rest is just smoke and mirrors.
Then it's jail for you with all the other criminals.
Any time you think you're ready....I'll be waiting.
That's hard to believe since you don't address any of the points to the theory, and quite frankly you don't understand it.
Oh no. I understand it very well. That's precisely why I reject it. Again, you forget, I'm arguing for the power that currently reigns supreme. If you want to prove you have a better system, the burden of that proof is on you. Be my guest.
Umm... yeah, because requiring people to work for the benefits that they recieve is nothing like murdering millions of people and getting as he put it, "life's greatest pleasure" from it.
Chaining people to the state machine = slavery, no matter how you dress it up.
I suppose we could build floating or undersea cities if we really wanted to.. but why would we? They'd be economically worthless; no capitalist would build one, although a floating city could maybe survive as a tourist destination. Colonising the Moon or Mars is even more of a money-sink.
answer: Land. Housing. Self-sufficiency. Adventure. Take your pick. Lots of good reasons for all of the above. Lots of reasons that enterprising individuals will jump at in the same way that wealthy nobles funded expeditions to the new world.
As for increasing the Earth's upper limit through technology... it's far from clear that our current existence is sustainable in the long term. Nor is it clear why people would want to keeping growing for the sake of it.
That's not how it works. We don't sit down on the internet and one day decide to go make lots more babies to push the population higher. But as population continues to increase, it creates its own demand and finding ways to get increasing yields from crops at lower prices, and a whole host of other things that support the increasing population.
As an aside, why are you so insulting in your responses? Half to two-thirds of your posts are nothing but rudeness.
If I get snappy and rude, it's for three reasons:
1) I get tired of being called an evil, whoremongering person with nothing substantial to back it up (you've not done this, and I apologize for my snappishness directed AT you)
2) When people hit me with rude, snotty, snide comments, I tend to hit back exponentially harder, and I don't relent.
3) Many of the proposed "revolutionary" ideas kicked around here have their basis in violence and bloodshed. I am a self-proclaimed capitalist. Thus, the ideas presented here with seriousness, are a direct threat not only to my current way of life, but to my continued EXISTENCE. Yes...that prompts an aggressive stance, in just the same way it would if I suddenly started espousing an ideology whereby we round up all communists and place them in "re-education camps" (or worse).
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Completely incorrect. If we trace the thread of the conversation back to my comment which spawned the original "Strawman" whine, we find:
My argument is that Marx is really good at bait and switch, and even better at creating his own internal logic, which works just fine till you take it off of the paper and put it into practice in the real world.
A passage which in no way meets the conditions you stated above. |
What a load of ****. You've been claiming the whole thread that past communist societies have failed, therefore all communist societies are doomed because of the failures of the last ones because they'll be exactly the same. That's a straw man.
quote:
Is that right? Because unless I'm mistaken, it is team red who trips all over themselves to ASSIGN names to the disasters of the past (calling them anything BUT communism in order to provide some safe distance from them) in order to protect the "good name" of Communism. No...by virtue of your own actions, I daresay you care a great DEAL about names. But of course, only when it works to your advantage. |
F - failure to answer the argument.
quote:
It would be if there were any serious thought occurring here to the eventual revolution, but I have asked on numerous occassions for specifics and details about what happens on RevDay1, and so far, I've gotten various versions of "don't worry about that....it'll work this time...we promise." Rather difficult to classify this as "serious thought directed to real possibilities" and my point therefore holds. About all you've been able to do so far is to construct a few pleasant (and some not-so-pleasant) FICTIONS, though I eagerly await some post of real substance in that regard. |
Isn't it obvious? Private control is abolished. Rather like health care in Great Britain. Formerly private corporations are nationalized.
quote:
Firstly, because the anarchistically inclined Reds are living in a dream world far above and beyond the rest of the Reds, and as such, their musings must be counted as little more than daydreams. The REASON this should be obvious, especially given the failings of previous revolutions, especially when taken together with the non-scalability of communal ideals (which is a longish essay in its own right and I lack the time at present to teach you something you should already know). |
You're so full of ****. Stop changing the subject. Not all communists agree, so arguments directed against one sort aren't going to work against all. You'd have to be a 24 carat moron not to understand that simple point.
quote:
Not so. What I am saying is, in the absence of any semblence of a plan brought forth....in the absence of any details on precisely WHAT will be different, and HOW, and GIVEN the presence of at least some on Team Red arguing from INSANELY totalitarian positions, the only conclusion I am left with is that the differences will be scant indeed. |
Well, it is insanely totalitarian to have a national health care system or police force or whatever. Part of the reason people don't like wasting their time spelling it out for you is that you respond with rhetorical whining and sarcasm.
quote:
Given this, it's patently insane to go into something as massive as a social revolution on a global scale with no clear plan, and only a string of failures behind you, and expect an entirely different result.[/q
This is somewhat of a straw man too. There's no reason to think that the revolution needs to be planned and executed with guns. Again, there is disagreement on this matter. My own view is that like most economic revolutions, it will occur in a somewhat haphazard fashion.
[q]Why is that so difficult to understand. The burden of proof lies with YOU who want to rip down the existing system. Present some on occassion, and perhaps you'll change a few minds. |
Who said we all want to rip it down. Marxists do not tend to say that – their position is that it will rip itself down.
quote:
Which sounds eerily like "making excuses" if you'll pardon my frankness. |
It sounds like "giving reasons" too, but obviously you just want to blah on in your sarcastic and ignorant fashion without actually engaging in debate.
quote:
Markets on the scale we see today are complex as you pointed out, but even the most ancient of civilizations had markets and bazzars where goods were sold and bartered for. It took us scores of centuries to realize that this was just the tip of the iceberg, but we caught on. |
I said tribal economies. 
quote:
]Stop us. You can't. You'll never be able to. No matter how tightly you squeeze us, you'll never be able to suppress us. |
Ooohh!!! That's an argument. Give me a break. I bet anything you're too much of coward to do anything about it.
quote:
Yes yes...and let us have a look at the mightily successful aboriginal peoples. Their technologic innovation and standard of living is the marvel of the free world. It's good to see a living, breathing example of what you wish to do to the whole of humanity. 'preciate that! |
Now we'll play "let's change the subject". You said that markets were natural. They are not, as the counterexample of tribal economies shows. The massive regulation required to sustain them shows that they aren't natural.
quote:
Get it through your heads....communal living works (can work, even then, it is by no means a sure thing) on the micro scale. It is not scalable in its nature WITHOUT the presence of a vast, monolithic state as a pre-requisite, which invariably has a vested interest in its own survival and continuation, which in turn, rattles LOTS of chains on LOTS of ghosts from you past. |
Stop changing the subject. Most people aren't going to give a toss whether they work for privatecorp or a publicly owned entity as long as they get a check at the end of the week. People are adaptable.
quote:
Am I? At who's expense am I celebrating myself? Please, either call them by name, or stop strawmanning... |
Everyone else. You seem to enjoy placing your welfare before everyone else's.
quote:
If, by equality, you mean "reductionism to the lowest common denominator" then I agree completely. |
No I don't, but thanks for wasting my time with your irrelevant BS.
quote:
Nope. I have no wish to argue at all. You guys can live in your fantasy world for the rest of your lives if it pleases you. Having read and digested your views, I only stand ready to defend myself from your machinations should your "revolution" ever rear its head. |
I've seen your pic. 
quote:
Dispute? There is no dispute. The market is here. It's working beutifully. (I know, I know, ask the people in the sweat shops in Malaysia....well, your Uncle Marx answered that one for you already, and actually got something right!) |
There is no dispute....
quote:
You raise doubts by using badly concocted definitions of capital and inventing entirely new definitions of exploitation. THOSE are the real points of dispute. The rest is just smoke and mirrors. |
I have not mentioned the latter once in this thread IIRC. Many capitalists would accept the definition of capital I gave – they just wouldn't think it's a bad thing.
quote:
Any time you think you're ready....I'll be waiting. |
I'm sorry, I just don't believe you.
quote:
Oh no. I understand it very well. That's precisely why I reject it. Again, you forget, I'm arguing for the power that currently reigns supreme. If you want to prove you have a better system, the burden of that proof is on you. Be my guest. |
Actually, you don't. You understand some crude caricature of Marxism that you read on the internet, and which has little to do with my own position.
quote:
1) I get tired of being called an evil, whoremongering person with nothing substantial to back it up (you've not done this, and I apologize for my snappishness directed AT you) |
You don't have anything substantial. I haven't called you a whoremonger, but I will do so if it makes you feel righteous.
quote:
2) When people hit me with rude, snotty, snide comments, I tend to hit back exponentially harder, and I don't relent. |
They do that because you ignore, or misunderstand their reasoning. You always do this.
quote:
3) Many of the proposed "revolutionary" ideas kicked around here have their basis in violence and bloodshed. I am a self-proclaimed capitalist. Thus, the ideas presented here with seriousness, are a direct threat not only to my current way of life, but to my continued EXISTENCE. Yes...that prompts an aggressive stance, in just the same way it would if I suddenly started espousing an ideology whereby we round up all communists and place them in "re-education camps" (or worse). |
If your existence is that wedded to a particular economic system then you need to see a doctor.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
What a load of ****. You've been claiming the whole thread that past communist societies have failed, therefore all communist societies are doomed because of the failures of the last ones because they'll be exactly the same. That's a straw man.
Incorrect, and I've said it before, but since you apparently have lost your glasses and thus, cannot READ, I shall reiterate again. Given a near-total ABSENCE of any particulars on the part of team red about WHAT will be different "this time" it is safe to assume that there won't be much of a difference (else they'd be mentioned, surely). Given the same basic plan, we can expect the same basic results. It's like beating your head against the wall and expecting that "this time" it won't hurt....
F - failure to answer the argument.
No argument posted...just another excuse about why "names don't matter" followed by a post that spells out that they must, given team red's fascination with them. But nice try.
Isn't it obvious? Private control is abolished. Rather like health care in Great Britain. Formerly private corporations are nationalized.
GREAT! The beginnings of a plan! So far, it's exactly textbook....so when do we get to the part where you add something different, so that we might expect a different outcome??
You're so full of ****. Stop changing the subject. Not all communists agree, so arguments directed against one sort aren't going to work against all. You'd have to be a 24 carat moron not to understand that simple point.
This isn't changing the subject, you dolt! Jesus Christ....since the absence of a state is a fantasy, the ONLY OPTION LEFT is some form or variant of a Statist Society. There's only two choices. State. No state. Get it? State...no state. No other option there. On or off. A stateless society is a daydream, so the only realistic hope is for some form of statist society. Not my fault if you can't see the blindingly obvious.
Well, it is insanely totalitarian to have a national health care system or police force or whatever. Part of the reason people don't like wasting their time spelling it out for you is that you respond with rhetorical whining and sarcasm.
Nationalizing things that cannot have clear ownership established over them (one can own a hospital, but tell me, how exactly, does one own a "healthcare"? One can own the building that the police operate from (and gangsters and the like can in some ways "own" the police, but that's not the same thing as what you're talking about), but one cannot own the police function. Your other example was education. In the same vein, one can own the school, but how does one go about "owning" an education. You can GET one, but it's not something that ownership in the capitalist sense can be ascribed to. Thus, anything that falls into that category can be nationalized. Nationalizing these bits and espousing a system in which everything is taken away and given to the state trust is NOT the same thing, and it is disengenuous in the extreme to pretend that it is. But you already knew that.
Who said we all want to rip it down. Marxists do not tend to say that – their position is that it will rip itself down.
Then you're talking an EVOLUTIONARY process, which is something that I've heard exactly ONE red advocate in all the cap/com threads I've participated in And this thread. One. So far, the evolutionary approach hasn't even been mentioned in this thread. Viva la revolution!
It sounds like "giving reasons" too, but obviously you just want to blah on in your sarcastic and ignorant fashion without actually engaging in debate.
Actually, I guess that depends on which side of the ideologic fence you're on. Sounds to me like a marginalized group, desperate for another crack at the prize, and willing to say anything for another chance.
I said tribal economies.
Yep. And even tribal economies had trade with their neighboring tribal economies, which is a primative market. Weak attempt, made marginally better by the eyeroll, cos it's cute.
oohh!!! That's an argument. Give me a break. I bet anything you're too much of coward to do anything about it.
Guess we'll find that out on RevDay1.
Now we'll play "let's change the subject". You said that markets were natural. They are not, as the counterexample of tribal economies shows. The massive regulation required to sustain them shows that they aren't natural.
You're right...cos there's no commerce or trade occuring inter or intra tribe with these communal folk.
None at all.
Nope.
Markets (primative ones, but markets nonetheless).
Everyone else. You seem to enjoy placing your welfare before everyone else's.
Can you prove that, or are you just talking out of your arse cos it sounds good for your side?
No I don't, but thanks for wasting my time with your irrelevant BS.
Wow! First class argument there....GREAT comeback....really inspired....really.
There is no dispute....
Nope. There is no dispute. Look, you've had a fistful of attempts (all failures). You've had more than a century to get the message out to the industrialized world (the ones that Uncle Marx (crosses self and bows reverently at the mention of the Great One's name) says are "ready" for capitalism), and you've got...what? Maybe 1% of the seats of power in those countries. We're not buying what you're selling. That, coupled with the vast failures SHOULD be a pretty strong indication.
WE'RE NOT INTERESTED.
But ohhhh no. Gotta keep beating that dead horse, don't we.
Gives you something to do I guess....so that's good.
I'm sorry, I just don't believe you.
Boy will YOU be in for a surprise....but come ahead....and bring friends.
Actually, you don't. You understand some crude caricature of Marxism that you read on the internet, and which has little to do with my own position.
If it makes you feel better to think so, by all means. The fact is that the vast majority of the industrialized world (your targets) feels largely the same way, which is why you've had such dismal luck at the polls on voting day. Feel free to make some more excuses tho....it's amusing to watch.
They do that because you ignore, or misunderstand their reasoning. You always do this.
Wrong. I do it because their reasoning if faulty, and no one likes having mistakes pointed out to them.
If your existence is that wedded to a particular economic system then you need to see a doctor.
Given the REVOLUTIONARY nature of the ideology (see above, I've only heard ONE person talking about a natural EVOLUTION...and Spiffor's plan don't count, cos he himself said it wasn't communism), and given that revolution involves theft and bloodshed (against those capitalists), and given that *I* am what you despise...yes, I think that's a safe assumption.
Kid:
1) Capitalism must reach a certain state which includes particular critical masses before a communist society can replace it. The working class (not peasants) must reach a critical mass and form a cohesive bond. The productive powers of capitalism (not feudalism) must peak.
Then you're essentially talking evolution (see above) which only ONE PERSON in a dozen or so threads has even mentioned, and that one person wasn't you. Your plan calls for a REVOLUTIONARY approach, whether the above condition is met or not. It is not a precondition you have ever seemed to care about until just this moment (ie - you've never mentioned it as a part of your planning, except now, in an attempt to show my lack of understanding).
2) A huge market failure must occur in capitalism which only leaves the option of central planning.
Again, evolutionary. If the market fails permanently, then some system must evolve to take its place. And again, not something that's entered into your planning even ONCE. Revolutions do not wait for the market to collapse.
3) A dictatorship of the proletariate will take power. That means that the proletariate must have all the power, not some vangard.
This is the one that involves a magic trick. I've bolded the relevant part, and unless you can provide me with PROOF that it'll be anything other than what's bolded, you're just talking out of your arse (which makes sense, since you read Marx).
4) The period after the revolution is not utopia. It's the period where things are worked out, and where the working class learns what it needs to know to live in a utopia.
No kidding! The thing Kid needs to acknowledge is "nor will the period AFTER the "sorting things out" be a utopia. Believe me...I've NEVER said anything (aside from sarcasm) about your ideology leading to a utopia of the blissful sort.
So is that is? All night searching, and that's all you could find.
Tsk tsk....I guess maybe Vel understands a bit more than you thought!
Oh...and couldn't find any vel-the-capitalist-slavemaster stuff either?
Imagine that.
You kids have fun today, playing with the computers that capitalism brough you...on the net that capitalism brought you, living in your safe capitalist countries and talking about how bad they are. 
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
3) A dictatorship of the proletariate will take power. That means that the proletariate must have all the power, not some vangard.
This is the one that involves a magic trick. I've bolded the relevant part, and unless you can provide me with PROOF that it'll be anything other than what's bolded, you're just talking out of your arse (which makes sense, since you read Marx). |
In Marx's language, "dictatorship" of the proletariat doesn't necessarily mean a monstrouly oppressive society. You have to understand where the expression comes from.
From Marx's perspective, the society is submitted to a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, i.e. the power is held by the bourgeois class. Even in democratic countries, the bourgeois will never relish to their power. This is the reason why Marx opposes the social-democrats (they socdems want to work within the democratic framework, which Marx considers to be ultimately in the hands of the bourgeois class).
The dictatorship of the proletariat is similar to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, except that the class in power is the proletariat. As such, the idea of a dictaroship of the proletariat is perfectly compatible with direct democracy. It's just that the democracy must serve the interests of the proletariat, instead of the bourgeoisie.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to take place only during the transitional phase. In the end, its aim is to create a classless society, which is obviously devoid of any dictatorship of a class.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
Spiff...I understand that, and further, I see it as another example of Marx inventing wholly new definitions for terms in order to maintain the illusion of his internal logic (plus, by defining the democratic institutions as "dictatorial," it breeds anger among the class of folk he hopes to see rise up in rebellion, which is a nice bonus for playing games with definitions...and, it nicely feeds on any disaffected person's thirst for more power than he currently has).
Further, even IF this were true (since it is based on a false premise to begin with, I highly doubt it, but entertaining the notion for a moment and saying "what if it were true" then the current class "in power" using the definition could also seek to use its power to bring about the utopic end. Apparently though, Marx paints here with a broad, generalistic brush, and assumes that all members in the current "dictatorial class" are corrupt beyond salvation, which can only come at the hands of the downtrodden.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
Further, even if we throw out the "revolutionary" aspect of the ideology, and look solely to the evolutionary aspect, the sudden disintegration of the established social order will create an immense power vaccuum. This power vaccuum WILL BE filled....not by a suddenly, magically benevolent, enlightened and empowered proletariat, but by individual men of ambition and savvy, who will take the reins of power and implement their own vision of the future, whatever that may be.
If that person happens to be a follower of "The Marx" then we'll be treated to his version of communism (at which time, we'll have a new "ism" since it won't be "real" communism of course, and when it too, fails, we'll be back here talking about how it will SURELY work next time....
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
answer: Land. Housing. Self-sufficiency. Adventure. Take your pick. Lots of good reasons for all of the above. Lots of reasons that enterprising individuals will jump at in the same way that wealthy nobles funded expeditions to the new world. |
We've had oil rigs for years... but they've not turned into self-sufficient communities. And underwater colonies just haven't happened. I can't even find an organisation that's devoted to pursuing such a goal, unlike the various space colonising societies.
As for the moon and Mars, the land is sterile basalt, the housing would be amongst the most expensive ever created, and the self-sufficiency (and low population) surely damages the idea that these places would help contribute to the capitalist economy. They'd probably have mostly planned economies for the first few decades, at least, and probably beyond that.
And the new world was explored by expeditions funded by the governments of the time, not 'wealthy nobles'.
quote:
That's not how it works. We don't sit down on the internet and one day decide to go make lots more babies to push the population higher. But as population continues to increase, it creates its own demand and finding ways to get increasing yields from crops at lower prices, and a whole host of other things that support the increasing population. |
You're thinking like a civ player. Food supplies are already perfectly adequate, as is everything else. People are simply less interested in having children.
I don't share your optimism that technological progress will always keep pace with population growth. There are plenty of civilizations which died out due to exhausting their resources.
Krazyhorse also pointed out a few months ago that if the population of America continued to grow at its present rate, in 40,000 years, the mass of Americans would exceed the mass of the the universe.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-05-2005 21:30
|