 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
That's not quite true. Some bourgeois can be "saved" and some can't. Such a thing must be judged on an individual basis.
However, the bourgeois class as a whole will always look for its interests first and foremost, which are opposite to the proletariat's. This is why this class should not be in power anymore, t least if you're a supporter of the proletariat's interests.
This seems reasonable (even where it glosses over the attrocities committed against the ones who "can't be saved" (whomever makes that determination), but for two things, which are closely related to one another.
IF it can be said that the current ruling class will look to its own interests first and foremost, then why is it assumed that once the proletariat rises to power, they will magically not do so (not look to their own interests first), but rather, usher in the long-awaited utopia, where there is plenty, and perfect equality for all?
What special skills does this group posess that makes this a foregone conclusion, just as it is offered as a foregone conclusion that the current dictators will automatically NOT be capable of getting us to the utopic state?
Without a solid answer to these questions, it would appear that we're simply swapping one master for another, and while this might be empowering for the minority who feel they have been abused by the system, it is not a recipie for utopia. It DOES make a good soundbyte to incite rebellion, but sadly, that does not make it true.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
IF it can be said that the current ruling class will look to its own interests first and foremost, then why is it assumed that once the proletariat rises to power, they will magically not do so (not look to their own interests first), but rather, usher in the long-awaited utopia, where there is plenty, and perfect equality for all? |
Che will fill you on that better than I, if he still reads this thread. I think that the dictatorship of the proletariat is forced to have a non-capitalist system, simply because the bulk of society (being proles) isn't oppressed anymore. Capitalism, as a system based on economic oppression, has to go.
In the new economic paradigm (socialism), it's not in the interests of the proletariat to economically oppress the other class. At least not in the long run. This is why the dictatorship of the proletariat has no reason to further the division between two classes.
Also, remember that I do not support the dictatorship of the proletariat. So my explanation of the concept might very well be unconvincing, and it's possible that there are some false things (I have tried to write what I'm sure about, however).
Again, Che will be better than me to explain the concept.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
We've had oil rigs for years... but they've not turned into self-sufficient communities.
This should be obvious, but if not, I'll state it. Oil rigs are designed for a specific economic purpose...that being, getting oil from beneath the waves, and into our cars. As such, there has never been an oil rig DESIGNED to be a self-sufficient operation.
And the new world was explored by expeditions funded by the governments of the time, not 'wealthy nobles'.
During the era in which the new world was discoverd, the european nations that did the greater bulk OF that exploration were....Monarchies. Meaning that they were ruled by....wealthy nobles.
Wealthy nobles (kings and queens) funded the expeditions to the new world, along with private companies of trade (which were generally themselves financed by wealthy nobles, amounting to the same thing)
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.
None of these are reasons not to go...only challenges to be overcome upon arriving (well, actually, before leaving, since, sans atmosphere, doing it on the fly would be somewhat daunting). The drive for more land and resources will make it happen. Sooner or later, we'll get there. It's just a question of when. The technology exists, and baby steps (unmanned probes) are currently being taken.
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.
I've not played Civ in quite some time. Actually, I'm thinking like the Earth isn't the only sandbox we'll ever be playing in. America's growth rate is only 0.92%. I have no information on the mass of the universe, but something tells me that, even given 40k years of time, that kind of growth rate would be insufficient to exceed the mass of the universe. Interesting notion tho.
Che will fill you on that better than I, if he still reads this thread. I think that the dictatorship of the proletariat is forced to have a non-capitalist system, simply because the bulk of society (being proles) isn't oppressed anymore. Capitalism, as a system based on economic oppression, has to go.
False premise. It is a system based on economic oppression as defined by Marx. The majority of people currently living under said economic system disagree (again, which is why communists hold...what? 1% or less of the seats of power IN industrialized nations, even though all the proles can vote...apparently their outrage, even after more than a century, is barely a blip).
-=Vel=-
Last edited by Velociryx on 27-05-2005 at 17:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
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).
|
I've mentioned it. I've been trying to tell you that for awhile now, but you are too caught up in your own little world.
More importantly it's part of Marxist theory which you claim to be fully versed in. You obviously need to try harder to understand what we are saying.
quote:
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 what? CAPITALISM ISN'T UTOPIA! No one is talking about utopia, except you when you use the word sarcastically.
Last edited by Kidicious on 27-05-2005 at 18:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
I've mentioned it. I've been trying to tell you that for awhile now, but you are too caught up in your own little world.
More importantly it's part of Marxist theory which you claim to be fully versed in. You obviously need to try harder to understand what we are saying.
I understand this: Since no one here subscribes fully to Marxist theory (everybody has their own spin on it, leaving out parts, modifying parts, etc), then it is important to spell out and specify WHAT parts you mean to enact. Having reviewed this thread, I find no mention by you of the above. Care to try again?
The working class is not like the peasant class. The peasant class does not have the cohesion that the working class does, and are not capable of revolution. Neither do the have a cohesive bond with the working class.
|
Page 10
From source,
The working class is unlike any other exploited class in history. We have seen how the three-sided class struggle within slave society necessarily led to the "common ruin of the contending classes". We have seen how the feudal peasantry were for hundreds of years incapable of formulating a coherent revolutionary alternative to the system that exploited them.
From me,
So feudal societies are not ready for communism. They must completely go through the stage of capitalism.
Marx predicted that capitalism will progress until a certain point has been reached, and that communism was not possible before that point. Communism can not occur before the process of capitalism is complete, just like the other stages of development could not occur before the stages before it were complete.
quote:
Kidicious: 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.
Kidicious Redeux: No one is talking about utopia.
Really? Then I'm all the more amused, cos it sure looks like you are!
|
Only in response to your constant sarcastic remarks about "ushering" in utopia.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
Nice try, Kid...you showed me where you wrote about what marx predicted, but in no way, made that a part of your plan (which is revolutionary, rather than evolutionary).
Further, your core argument is based around a series of false premesis designed by marx to hang together to form a cohesive internal logic, but which has not been borne out in reality in any of the various attempts to model a society around those core concepts.
I contend that the reason this is so is because they are both false and faulty. Nothing you, or any other member of team red has shown me to date has done the least thing to change my mind.
Nothing you, or any member of the communist party has been able to do in more than a century of trying has been able to attract the attention of the mainstream, as it relates to political power. You will say (parroting Marx, of course) that this is because the current dictatorship is secretly robbing the power of the poor downtrodden masses, blah, blah, blah, and you MUST tell yourselves this, because the only other explanation is that you're just plain...wrong. And obviously, that's not up for debate. So the fairy tale continues.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Nice try, Kid...you showed me where you wrote about what marx predicted, but in no way, made that a part of your plan (which is revolutionary, rather than evolutionary).
|
Where did I say that it wasn't "part of my plan." If I'm a Marxist that is part of "my plan" unless I state otherwise. And I think I've been clear that I do believe in that part of the theory. Why don't you just debate it, instead of weaseling out?
quote:
Further, your core argument is based around a series of false premesis designed by marx to hang together to form a cohesive internal logic, but which has not been borne out in reality in any of the various attempts to model a society around those core concepts.
|
Anyone can just say that. If you want to debate you have to state the premises that you believe to be false, and the predictions that he made that have turned out false.
quote:
I contend that the reason this is so is because they are both false and faulty. Nothing you, or any other member of team red has shown me to date has done the least thing to change my mind.
concepts.
|
We aren't necessarily trying to change your mind. We're just trying to get you to put up a decent debate, because we like to debate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
Where did I say that it wasn't "part of my plan." If I'm a Marxist that is part of "my plan" unless I state otherwise. And I think I've been clear that I do believe in that part of the theory. Why don't you just debate it, instead of weaseling out?
Answer: Yes. You have been clear (recently) that you "believe in" (more references to religion) that part of the theory, however, your theory is revolutionary in its nature. Revolutions, by their very natures, do not wait for evolution to occur (which is what "that part" of the theory is all about...you sure you understand this stuff? That's rather why they are termed "revolutions."
Thus, even if you believe it, it stands in stark contrast to your plans (revolutionary =! evolutionary no matter how hard squeeze your eyes shut and wish it were so).
Anyone can just say that. If you want to debate you have to state the premises that you believe to be false, and the predictions that he made that have turned out false.
Already have. Perhaps if you'd read my posts instead of just blindly trolling, you'll find them. 
We aren't necessarily trying to change your mind. We're just trying to get you to put up a decent debate, because we like to debate.
Of course you do. Having seen all your previous attempts go up in flames, having seen the poor, downtrodden masses in the industrialized world you claim to be fighting for utterly reject your ideology for more than a century now, in preference for what's working for them, rather than your empty promises and sketchy schemes, forum debate is about the only avenue you've got left. I figured THAT out during the first cap/com thread.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
Not true in North America- private companies/individuals did do some of the exploring, trading and colonizing. |
You are of course correct. I was just overreacting to Vel's insinuation that the Age of Exploration was financed soley by Renaissance Donald Trumps.
quote:
This should be obvious, but if not, I'll state it. Oil rigs are designed for a specific economic purpose...that being, getting oil from beneath the waves, and into our cars. As such, there has never been an oil rig DESIGNED to be a self-sufficient operation. |
Throughout human history, resource gathering operations cause new settlements to spring up round them. If sea cities were remotely feasible, they'd have emerged around oil rigs.
quote:
During the era in which the new world was discoverd, the european nations that did the greater bulk OF that exploration were....Monarchies. Meaning that they were ruled by....wealthy nobles.
Wealthy nobles (kings and queens) funded the expeditions to the new world, along with private companies of trade (which were generally themselves financed by wealthy nobles, amounting to the same thing). |
The monarchs, as head of state, funded the exploration with state funds raised via taxation, not just their own personal wealth.
quote:
None of these are reasons not to go...only challenges to be overcome upon arriving (well, actually, before leaving, since, sans atmosphere, doing it on the fly would be somewhat daunting). The drive for more land and resources will make it happen. Sooner or later, we'll get there. It's just a question of when. The technology exists, and baby steps (unmanned probes) are currently being taken. |
You make it sound inevitable.
quote:
I've not played Civ in quite some time. Actually, I'm thinking like the Earth isn't the only sandbox we'll ever be playing in. America's growth rate is only 0.92%. I have no information on the mass of the universe, but something tells me that, even given 40k years of time, that kind of growth rate would be insufficient to exceed the mass of the universe. Interesting notion tho. |
At 0.92% growth, the population of America will (very roughly) double every 100 years. If we start at 300 million, then by the year 3000 the population will be 307 billion. And you've got 39000 years of growth left.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
You continue to ignore the facts, and try to make up people's theories for them in a way that you think you can defeat those theories. Historical Materialism - how many times do we have to introduce and explain that concept to you?
Facts?! That's a new one....since when have you ever bothered to argue from a position of facts? I can find more facts by reading "The Hobbit," and it's vastly more entertaining, even the twentieth time around.
The FACT is that Marx invented a beautifully little fiction about a century ago and it generated some excitement cos it seemed to paint a pretty accurate picture of the economy of that day. Because this was true, people started treating him a bit like Nostradamus, hanging on his every prediction.
People (love or hate 'em, this much is certainly true) who have (had) a lot more talent, vision, drive, and ambition in their little finger than you've EVER displayed in the entire time I've known you gave the theories of Marx a go. And another go. And another go.
They didn't work, and the killed a lot of people and caused a lot of misery, but wait! Hold the phones! Here comes Kidatopia, and he's got allllll the answers. Kinder, gentler work camps, avoiding all the pitfalls of the past....just don't ask for too many details...you know...trust him. He's got your best interests at heart.
It's a joke.
At best.
Admitedly I have to scroll through much of your crap, but why don't you pick out the premise that you believe to be the most blatantly false and maybe we can debate it if you can refraim from the same old shite.
I can see why you'd ask this of me (again). After all, you're so blinded and dazzled by "The Marx" that you devour every word, only to regurgitate it back up later and pretend its wisdom.
Among other things that Marx creates his fiction around is the narrow interpretation of the labor theory of value, skewed definiton of capital, the "fact" that, per The Marx, profits and rent are bad things, a wholly new definiton of "exploitation" and "dictatorship" (courtesy of Spiffor), and a whole host of newly invented terms that go hand in hand with his fiction ("variable capital" and "surplus value" for example).
And since I can't put it into words any better than what has already been done, I'll give a nod to FutureCasts, and provide a brief summary:
....It is an exercise in rationalization rather than reason, and leads him into conclusions that can only be described as incredible stupidity. He proceeds in his usual style - repetitive, minutely detailed, so elaborating the obvious that he obscures his numerous errors of omission and the gross weaknesses in his logic......It is absolutely impossible to rationally discuss or even think about the ordinary phenomena of economics using the terminology introduced and redefined by Marx. With these nonfunctional definitions, the 1800 pages of Das Kapital are revealed to consist predominantly of nonsense.
That's a good start, I think.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
You continue to ignore the facts, and try to make up people's theories for them in a way that you think you can defeat those theories. Historical Materialism - how many times do we have to introduce and explain that concept to you?
Facts?! That's a new one....since when have you ever bothered to argue from a position of facts? I can find more facts by reading "The Hobbit," and it's vastly more entertaining, even the twentieth time around.
The FACT is that Marx invented a beautifully little fiction about a century ago and it generated some excitement cos it seemed to paint a pretty accurate picture of the economy of that day. Because this was true, people started treating him a bit like Nostradamus, hanging on his every prediction.
People (love or hate 'em, this much is certainly true) who have (had) a lot more talent, vision, drive, and ambition in their little finger than you've EVER displayed in the entire time I've known you gave the theories of Marx a go. And another go. And another go.
They didn't work, and the killed a lot of people and caused a lot of misery, but wait! Hold the phones! Here comes Kidatopia, and he's got allllll the answers. Kinder, gentler work camps, avoiding all the pitfalls of the past....just don't ask for too many details...you know...trust him. He's got your best interests at heart.
|
Blah blah blah, you just avoided the issue again with a bunch of crap.
quote:
Admitedly I have to scroll through much of your crap, but why don't you pick out the premise that you believe to be the most blatantly false and maybe we can debate it if you can refraim from the same old shite.
Among other things that Marx creates his fiction around is the narrow interpretation of the labor theory of value, skewed definiton of capital, the "fact" that, per The Marx, profits and rent are bad things, a wholly new definiton of "exploitation" and "dictatorship" (courtesy of Spiffor), and a whole host of newly invented terms that go hand in hand with his fiction ("variable capital" and "surplus value" for example).
|
I can't debate you until you have an argument. You just gave a list of the ideas that you oppose. Where's the beef?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
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). |
No. You're assuming that all the communists will follow the same plans as those that have been promoted in the past. There's no reason to think that – therefore your argument doesn't hold water. And there is further reason to dissent from your view in that it is unlikely that socialism in countries like Britain would be the totalitarian horror you envisage, simply because of cultural differences.
quote:
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.... |
I've been patiently trying to explain to you that, apart from abolition of private ownership of the means of production which can be accomplished in various ways (state ownership; co-operatives) there is no "same basic plan". Moreover, given the absence of the same feeder conditions that obtained for past revolutions, there is no reason to expect the same again.
quote:
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. |
No. I've been quietly pointing out what's wrong with your argument, to which you respond with denial and bluster.
quote:
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?? |
So why is this the same as Stalinism? I know that some people complain about Stalinist health services, but they are clearly exaggerating.
quote:
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. |
Some people disagree, but I'm sure they'll be convinced by your bald assertion that a non-statist society is a fantasy. I myself agree that a non-statist society is unlikely, but I'm willing to admit it is a possibility.
quote:
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"? |
Property is shorthand for a type of control. One can "own" healthcare, by regulating such that the state is the only provider. This is what happpens (with some cosmetic exceptions) in most countries that have a public healthcare system.
Sorry – your argument fails. Quite laughably too.
quote:
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. |
No. The same objection applies. Property is simply a form of control – it ascribes a legal right to a person to do with something what they wish. So called intellectual property is a more amorphous case that doesn't fit too well with your conception.
Owning the police in this case just means what it does in most societies now – only the government is legally entitled to run a police force. Therefore the government "owns" the police. You can quibble about names again, but that's irrelevant.
quote:
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. |
So if the communists in this thread do not mention it, then no communist can believe it. Interesting....
quote:
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. |
Blah blah blah. You don't have anything substantial to offer in response, so you respond with bluster.
quote:
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. |
They didn't have to and in the earliest cases did not. And in any case, even if they did, in many cases they were governed by strict rules of exchange which don't reallly fit the market model. You still lose.
quote:
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). |
Not all tribes traded with each other. The primitive Maori did not, for example. They later did in a primitive fashion, but such trade was governed by rule and custom, rather than being like a modern market exchange.
quote:
Can you prove that, or are you just talking out of your arse cos it sounds good for your side? |
It's painfully evident. You moan on about yourself morning noon and night.
quote:
Nope. There is no dispute. |
Of course there's no dispute because you don't want there to be one. 
quote:
Look, you've had a fistful of attempts (all failures). |
Name one Trotskyist attempt? As I've been saying again and again: communists disagree. You can't paint all of them with the failures of some of them, particularly when the others were among their most vocal critics.
quote:
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. |
I take it that this is the royal "we". Plenty of Latin Americans seem interested recently. Moreover it seems bizarre to believe that people will be convinced of Marxism and then bring its economic conditions about, rather than the other way around.
Basically, you don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever been to college? If so, it must have been rather lame. Your responses show little understanding of even capitalist economics and your mode of argument is to just baldly assert what the other side is calling into question. If you produced this sort of stuff where I work, you'd be laughed out of university – whatever side you were on – because you aren't responding to the arguments as stated.
Moreover, you can't resist rhetorical flushes that serve no purpose other than to irritate people and stroke your ego. I guess that's why you're a writer and not a thinker – you respond emotionally instead of rationally to issues.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
Ahhhh, the perfect way to start the long weekend! And he looks so cute when he gets himself all worked up!
No. You're assuming that all the communists will follow the same plans as those that have been promoted in the past. There's no reason to think that – therefore your argument doesn't hold water. And there is further reason to dissent from your view in that it is unlikely that socialism in countries like Britain would be the totalitarian horror you envisage, simply because of cultural differences.
All the communists will follow the same Marxist-driven ideology, which is flawed to the core. Thus, no matter what the "shading" your various flavor-of-the-month reds put on it, no matter how you spin it, since it still all stems from the same rotten, debunked, disproved, and beaten-to-death line of worn out reasoning, yep....it's safe to expect....pretty much the same thing, right down to a teeming mass of Reds crying foul when it blows up in their face, and giving us another "ism" (you know, since names don't count )
I've been patiently trying to explain to you that, apart from abolition of private ownership of the means of production which can be accomplished in various ways (state ownership; co-operatives) there is no "same basic plan". Moreover, given the absence of the same feeder conditions that obtained for past revolutions, there is no reason to expect the same again.
I would say that abolishing private ownership is a....rather largish element, wouldn't you? (undo a few centuries of progress in one fell swoop...yep...that's pretty major) And yes...there IS a "same basic plan." It's called Marxist theory, with is a seething, half-coherent mass of doubletalk that has no basis in economic reality whatsoever. C'mon Ag...smart college boy like you, getting sucked in like that? I'd not be so quick to dismiss anybody else's college education, given your current cult-affiliation. 
No. I've been quietly pointing out what's wrong with your argument....
....and equally quick to hide behind those names that "aren't important." I see.
So why is this the same as Stalinism?
mayhaps because....it's drawn from the same nonsensical ideology, and therefore, has all the same flaws, and therefore is not rooted in economic reality, and therefore will, in all likelihood come to the same gruesome end, barring direct intervention by some higher power?
Some people disagree, but I'm sure they'll be convinced by your bald assertion that a non-statist society is a fantasy. I myself agree that a non-statist society is unlikely, but I'm willing to admit it is a possibility.
And they are certainly free to. As for my "bald assertion," given that no one currently has a plan tabled on what that might look like, and given that the concept of communal ownership (whatever form it might take) will have to be enforced, no....I see no reason to cater to the folks living in that particular cloud-castle.
Property is simply a form of control – it ascribes a legal right to a person to do with something what they wish.
Which is perhaps the BEST thing that's happened to human beings in about forever. Unless you're a member of the Marxist Cult.
So if the communists in this thread do not mention it, then no communist can believe it. Interesting....
I realize that high-brow college education you're so proud of makes you a bit of an effete snob, but do try and pay attention. To believe something =! to incorporate that belief into the essence of your plans. I believe that Marxism is quite possibly the most laughable "economic theory" ever constructed. It does not, however, enter into my day to day plans.
Blah blah blah. You don't have anything substantial to offer in response, so you respond with bluster.
I'd say this quote is a perfect example of the very thing you accuse me of. Good try, Comrade.
Not all tribes traded with each other. The primitive Maori did not, for example. They later did in a primitive fashion, but such trade was governed by rule and custom, rather than being like a modern market exchange.
Even IF you can cite a historic example where a tribe was isolated and completely cut off from all contact, then they still would have traded internally. Commerce would have happened on some form, and this primative trade (with all its customs, rules and regulations) is the direct ancestor of the thing we call the market today (with all its customs, rules, and regulations). Only a total moron would believe otherwise. College education not helpin' you out too much, eh?
Name one Trotskyist attempt? As I've been saying again and again: communists disagree. You can't paint all of them with the failures of some of them, particularly when the others were among their most vocal critics.
Ohhhh....yes, and how many Aggie-ist attempts, or Kidist attempts?, or Cheist attempts? You guys all preach from the same bible that's failed you in the past. Slap a new coat of paint on it, and it's still the same crapmobile it was before. The only difference is, when it rots out from under you, we'll get the pleasure of hearing you cry that it wasn't "real" communism, but only Trotskyism, or Aggie-ism, or whathaveyou. Not worth a few more million lives lost so you can get your rocks off on the world stage.
Basically, you don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever been to college? If so, it must have been rather lame. Your responses show little understanding of even capitalist economics and your mode of argument is to just baldly assert what the other side is calling into question. If you produced this sort of stuff where I work, you'd be laughed out of university – whatever side you were on – because you aren't responding to the arguments as stated.
Already commented on the education part...only thing left to say is that just as soon as an argument hits the table, there'll be something to respond to. Until then, it's fun to rattle your cage and nit-pick.
Have a good Labor Day weekend.
-=Vel=-
Last edited by Velociryx on 28-05-2005 at 04:56
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-05-2005 17:15
|