 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
Well, I see some things never change, including Kid's obsession with arguing without actually saying anything.
Answer me this, Kid:
You're at home in your apartment one day, when the People's Watcher Brigade, Member 98333304485-b11 shows up at your door and tells you to pack your things. Your skills, it seems, are required in LittleRock, Arkansas. This is where you will do society the most good.
Just you.
Your family must stay where they are, because your wife's best use to society is right where she is.
Failure to comply with the wishes of the state will result in your being sent to a re-education camp, and your wife taken to a clinic for observation for a period of not less than six months.
The car's downstairs and waiting. Since you don't own anything anyway, except for a few clothes, you don't have much to pack.
No need to discuss pay, or what you will be doing, since that is not relevent. All you need to know is that the benevolent state has decided that LittleRock, Arkansas is where you will do the most good.
Oh...and once you're there, you'll get a stake in the ownership of the means of production for....well...whatever it is you'll be producing.
You can add in that last bit as a bone, or leave it off....it doesn't disguise what's really going on in that scene, does it?
Slavery, no matter how you slice it.
You can post cute one-line replies, or do the eye-roll thing (  ) or try to be dodgy all day long, but none of that will change the fact....the FACT that the scene just described (taken straight from the pages of your own manifesto) is.....slavery.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
It doesn't take an astral plane to see that piss poor workers funneling the wealth of billionaires is unfair sharing.
So...perhaps the billionaires should stop financing factories? Should stop putting their money at risk by creating new jobs?
You know, the easiest way for the Reds to start showing how glorious the revolution could be is to use the current system to amass a fortune, finance the building of their OWN factories, and then turning them over to those who work there.
Amazing though, how you NEVER see anything like that happen....I wonder why not.....
Capitalism never does anything like that....
The copy of that book I've got must have some missing chapters, cos I don't remember the part about how they were forced into slavery. Interesting too that I missed the part where they were ordered to California....which chapter was that stuff in again? 
Was the depression-era tough times for everyone?
Absolutely.
Did people get forced off of their land?
Nope....if the bank was involved, then they can't very well say it was "their" land, can they? (sounds like the bank had a claim to it....maybe in the form of a mortgage loan?).
Had they focused on paying the loan off during the fat years and gotten the bank out of the loop, so to speak, it woulda been a pretty short (and not nearly so popular, I think) book!
But it goes back to individual choice (and hand-in-hand with it, individual responsibility), something that scares the bejesus out of you guys, for reasons I can't quite fathom.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
Thanks Ag, and btw, the feeling is mutual. I like you, and Spiff, Kid, and Che and actually, all the reds I banter with.
I think your ideas regarding economics are about as behind the times as the seminal document which spawned them, but you guys personally are cool. 
It's the economic fairytale I have problems with.
As for fiction, Kid...ohhh no. Fiction is where Communism lives. As soon as we get Star Trek replicators.
Til then, I'll stick with the system that works, thanks.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
Seriously....what's missing here, from Red-Central, is a plan...a strategy.
Without that, all you've got is talk, and talk is cheap. So...in the good spirit of Ag's last post, I'll GIVE you a strategy, step by step:
1) Get on the same page, or at least, in the same neighborhood. The revolution goes exactly NOWHERE if all you've got is a thousand different-and-competing views on what shape the glorious revolution is going to even TAKE. Right now, we've got the whole gamut from the half-step, worker empowerment of Spiffor, to Ag's replicator's, to Kid's work camp utopia. These aren't even in the same solar system with each other, and won't mesh well together on RevDay1, so pick one and stick with it. Get your fellow comrades behind your vision and a leader emerges.
2) Exploit the current system. Use the current system to amass a huge fortune, and then, use the fortune to gain control of the means of production for yourself. Once you HAVE control, you can turn it over to your Comrades, and thus, give them a real taste of what it'll be like when you wash away the last vestiges of that hellspawn creation that is capitalism. Plus, you'll earn bonus cool points for demonstrating that although you're using the current system, you are not, in fact, a capitalist pig-dog.
3) Having successfully executed steps one and two, you'll be accompanied by an ever-growing legion of faithful who will see the glories of the revolution. Do this often enough, and you'll be able to influence elections. Do THAT, and you'll land seats in congress, and can begin enacting laws that will push the national agenda toward your goals.
From there, it should be easy enough to take it to the next level....
So there you have it....the beginnings of a blueprint to do something other than gab about the utopia.
Who's got the brass to actually try...or is idle chit-chat enough?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
Hey...I agree....there's lots of people who still haven't been bouyed by the power of the engine...it takes time, and the concept of a global economy isn't that old...makes sense that the most developed nations would feel the gains first, and that is in fact, what has occurred.
But have a look around India and China (whose recent successes have been coming specefically BECAUSE they began embracing the market), and I think you'll see that the rise in standard of living has been pronounced since embracing capitalist principles, while it had stagnated (in China's case) under the same-old, same-old paradigm.
Standards of living are on the rise, which makes it harder to recruit to your cause....I understand this, but don't really see a good way of combating it, short of bloodletting, of course, which would only prove me right.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
It only worked because we crushed the resulting rebellion
|
Which is a bad thing how?
quote:
sone of then were starting outright revolts as far as I know.
|
So your beliefs aren't radical unless you revolt?
quote:
The MLK Jr. types won support because they protested peacefully. When the extemist Black Panther types incited the race riots much of the intergration stuff like school bussing stated to loose support.
|
Integration was not really the goal of the Black Panther party. If you look at the ten point program of the organization it says nothing about integration.
One thing that a lot of people don't know is that most of the foot soldiers of the Civil Rights Movement resented the non-violent ideology of MLK Jr.. They saw a more immediate need to defend themselves.
quote:
We are problebly using different definitions of "radical" I am using it as a term for people who wan't to make an abrupt and immediate change, pragmatism and realism be damned; which rarely works because it always causes a backlash, or ends up being a stupid move. |
What kind of backlash has there been against all of these radical movements? A few right wing idiots like neo-nazis? Who cares? Radicals have been much more successfull than so called "pragmatists" who never change a damn thing because they really want things to stay the same.
Last edited by Kidicious on 22-05-2005 at 16:35
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
Calling people stupid for having different opinions, and telling stories to make it seem like they support a type of system that they don't isn't bantering. I'm suprised you still find people to put up one side of a debate.
Mmmm....well now...unless I'm mistaken, just one page ago, YOU were the one who said that forced work camps were a good idea.....were you not?
Do you refute having said this?
And a work camp where one is FORCED TO LABOR.....if that's not slavery, what, praytell, would you call it?
PS: Here's the exact quote, lest you try to DanS your way around it....
Vel: And Kid....not delusional...hell, you've said yourself on NUMEROUS occassions that you want to force people to work. You've mentioned forcibly relocating families, telling people WHERE they'll work, and on what project, and a host of other things.
Kid's Reply: This is a lot better, because you don't have such poor allocation of labor. People are trained for the job that will contribute the most to society and they will work where they can contribute the most to society. Everyone benefits. It's much better than the chaos of capitalism where no one really know where the **** to go and what the **** to do half the time.
Ag, I can definitely see how a brush with Morons, Inc. would increase your membership, but that has nothing to do with capitalism itself. Stupid people exist in any ideology.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dracon II
|
 |
Communist Party of Apolyton
Jan 1970
time: 15:20
|
|
The fundamental difference between capitalists and communists is their differing conceptions of equality. Correct me if I'm wrong... I'm just giving a rough sketch here...
Capitalism, or at least the classical liberal justification of capitalism, rests on the belief that all men are equal. This is best summarized in the declaration of independence. However, the equality is moral, not material. Capitalists rest on the idea of inherent equality and use it to promote political and legal equality. Thus arises the assumption that everyone has equality of opportunity and ability, and that there is therefore a justification for economic inequality. The rich simply worked hard. Thus, capitalists rely heavily on the human agency/will and the interaction of human agency/will as the basis of their social system.
Communists however, see equality differently. The abstraction of equality to the moral, political and legal spheres ignores the fact that one of the most basic forms of inequality is material inequality. Material and productive riches constituting the most potent form of power in a capitalist society, communists see the bracketing of equality in the state as a means of justifying and mystifying the gross inequality that exists in civil society. Furthermore, it also mystifies the greater political and legal power that the richer people have as influential and powerful actors in society. The separation of state and civil society is thus a ruse disguising the fact that the two are inseparable and mutually determined.
Thus the difference is that capitalists see equality as an a priori quality inherent in all humans, and use it justify really existing inequality by pointing to the formal equality that all people have within the state, and communists see the really existing inequality and concoct a teleological philosophy in order to justify it's elimination.
My personal view is that humans are endowed with different and unequal capacities, and are distributed across areas with unequal capacities and are born into situations of unequal quality, and that eliminating inequality altogether would take far too much effort and coercion for what it would be worth. Society should concentrate of maximizing equality and utility, but should not commit itself to absolute equality as a goal, merely the amelioration of suffering, want, ignorance and idleness for the lowest of society, and the provision of opportunities for upward mobility. I believe that the assumption of equality anaesthetizes us against the indignity of inequality, but I also believe the ultimate elimination of inequality is a dream.
I simply believe that a commitment to raising the standards of living is necessary in the short term. In the long term, a commitment to making economics sustainable is necessary. If capitalism is allowed to ride roughshod across the world, it is only likely to make the ultimate social consequences and the next mode of production more intolerable for everyone, not least the capitalist. I don't believe that anything should be taken to the extreme. And thus capitalism needs to be regulated by an impartial state that has long term interests and sustainability in mind.
Most societies since at least antiquity have had some form of market operating within their economy. However, the concept of a "market economy" is quite a novelty in historical terms. It's my belief that a market economy is inherently unstable in the long term. The ultimate problem with today's society is that our capacity to stabilize and restrain the market is diminishing, as a global market emerges that has no real political overseer.
I believe that Communism should only be striven for if it becomes a material necessity. In the meantime, I support the socialization of essential goods and services and the universal provision of subsistence. Unfortunately this capacity has been taken away from Governments to a great extent, and thus the only progressive option is global government. This would only happen if a cataclysmic crisis in the global economy occurs. In the meantime, I believe the long term project of the Marxist should be in raising the political consciousness of the masses to a global level, i.e. to the same level at which capital now operates. Marxists can only be effective nowadays if they coordinate across borders and between developing and developed nations. If they restrict their project to the formerly priveliged working classes of industrialized nations... they risk becoming parochial nationalists and anachronistic protectionists... pissing against the wind.
quote:
I just don't think people ought to be paid more because they can do something that someone else can't. |
Noble ideal, but hard work should be rewarded. We can't rely on voluntarism, or on political rewards. A just society rewards effort and service with real benefits.
quote:
I am saying that the rule of law is not possible when there is no legislature and no court system, but only party bosses that make decisions. |
I agree with Ned here. In China, even with a legislature and a court system, the existence of the rule of law there is questionable. It's more rule by law.
I don't agree with Lenin's idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the violence of the working classes against the bourgeoisie in the absence of laws. Lawlessness breeds arbitrary rule and an excess reliance of charismatic or coercive power.
quote:
Rail and Utilities? These are so-called natural monopolies anyway. |
The assumption here is that there are "natural" forms of ownership and a "natural" way of organising production. There are "prudent" forms of ownership and production... but not "natural" ones. Reifying a particular way of doing things as natural only makes it more difficult to change when change becomes prudent. That's why the bourgeoisie had such a hard and bloody time trying to get rid of the whole divine right of kings bullshit.
quote:
All companies are "responsible" in some fashion to their employees. |
Company responsibility has got to be more than just to their employees. The environment should be considered a valuable constituent, as should the community, and the company's customers. Marx's labour-centric theories have got to be adapted to the new **** to which we are now privy... such as the importance of consumer goods to our general standard of living, and to the ecosystem.
quote:
If it's okay to own the shirt, then it's okay to own the loom. Same mechanism. Same principle. |
To what mechanism and principle are you referring? Are you saying that one's relationship to a produced good is the same as one's relationship to that which produced it? By that logic, my ownership of a pair of Nikes entitles me to own the indonesian girls who assembled it. Clearly wrong.
In the context you were referring to, there is no contradiction between privately owning a product produced by a publicly owned instrument... unless you subscribe to absolutes. It's not necessary to believe that everything should be publicly owned to still believe in public ownership. Once again, its a matter of prudence. If a thing can be privately produced, for a lower price, at better quality, and with higher wage and better conditions for the workers that produced the thing, than if it was publicly produced, then private production in that case is unambiguously the prudent option. If it does not satisfy all those criteria, then one has to make a priority choice between them and compromise.
quote:
There's nothing inherently immoral about the loom, just as there's nothing inherently immoral about the shirt |
This isn't a discussion about morality, nor should it be. Discussions of politics and economics must be about utility and possibility. Otherwise one strays too far into the realm of idealism. Any good Marxist will tell you that their arguments are not based on morality but on a materialist pragmatism that seeks to obtain the greatest amount of utility from a given set of material conditions. This means that the "right", "ideal" or "moral" way of organising society changes according to context.
quote:
As a means of establishing the value of any particular good or service, there's nothing better. You can pretend otherwise till the cows come home, but there's yet to be a demonstrably better price setter. Until someone can show me one, I'll stand by my conviction. |
Price in the market is determined by the relationship of supply and demand. For this relationship to be an efficient determinant of price, demand must be rational and the supplier and consumer must be equally knowledgable. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Consumers are rarely more knowledgeable than the producers, and more often than not receive their knowledge of the product from the advertising that producers spend billions on each year. Thus producers are able to inflate their price beyond reason by creating a cult or aura around their product and pander to the consumer's desire to distinguish him/herself from other's. Much of the market value of products nowadays is determined by the subjective whims of consumers that are in part influenced by the high tech/saturation manipulation of producers. Hardly a rational way of establishing value.
Apart from that, I understand that the theoretical basis of market price determination is valid. Any planned economy should at least take into account the principle of supply and demand. Otherwise, if they sell a scarce product at a fixed price lower than market value, they're merely going to create a shortage anyway. The things that we cannot produce in abundance will have to be supplied according to market principles, or will have to be targeted to those that need them most.
quote:
What I take issue with most of all is the fact that the Communist folks feel this urgent, insatiable NEED to control the lives of others. |
I don't feel a communist should control the lives of others unless the activities of these "others" are a threat to the sustainability of both society and the environment. Thus, those industries that are directly contributing to global warming, to desertification, to the irreversible degradation of the environment are in effect threatening future productivity, and the sustainability of human civilization. I think the case for control is compelling in this regard. This is just one example. If arms manufacturers are, by their greed, directly contributing to the escalation of conflict and to the increasing effectiveness of the killing potential of the parties to a conflict, then I think the case for control is compelling. If, by their actions, a firm is making life miserable for its employees and is not sufficiently contributing to their welfare, then the case for control is compelling and the need to collectively determine a minimum standard of living for people is a necessity. These cases do not even call for communism, they simply call for a wholistic review of the social and natural impact of economic/productive activity and the active pursuit of solutions, which will inevitably result in the necessity of controls.
quote:
Somehow, the poor, downtrodden average man is incapable of negotiating a good deal for himself |
If he has no security in his employment, if he lives in desparation for a wage and if he is forced to act alone, then I would say that he is incapable of negotiating a good deal. Somehow, you don't see how the characteristics of being "poor" and "downtrodden" are both the cause and effect of being incapable of negotiating a good deal. Again, this is blindness is symptomatic of the assumption of equality.
quote:
* Further, people do not exist in a vaccuum. That is to say, we are dynamic. When I was sixteen, I was only qualified to work in low skilled jobs. I did not come from a family of wealth or affluence, and yet...despite my relative lack of opportunity, I was able, all by my powerless self, bootstrap my way AWAY FROM the unskilled type job, and into a highly technical field. I did not need a state babysitter to assist me in this (no student loans taken, no nanny state paying for my education). I did not need a rich uncle's trust fund. I did it by virtue of focus and hard work. In this, I am hardly unique. |
The idea that simple hard work and perseverance are the sole pre-requisites for a good and prosperous life is symptomatic of a flawed world-view that can only seriously exist in times of plenty, and when the opportunities for growth and expansion are in abundance. In times of economic penury and scarcity of opportunity (more the norm than the rule), one's hard work and perseverence in no way guarantees success. It is inequality that structures life chances and success, not simply the human will. Thus the ontological assumptions of laissez faire capiralists with regard to the fundamentals of human nature and its interaction with the actual world are scarcely less ideological than communism. Human will/agency is not sufficient to explain human success/inequality. It is in man's interaction with pre-existing and objective social and material conditions that largely determine his chances of success. That in western society there is sufficient room for growth and dynamism in the economy that a larger number of people than ever before are able to lift themselves into prosperity is no confirmation of the validity of this particular state of affairs across time and space. If (When) the economy hits bottom, it will not matter one iota whether or not you work hard to write and produce games and works of art. Your life chances as a producer of such idle luxuries will see you sink regardless of your efforts.
quote:
But it goes back to individual choice (and hand-in-hand with it, individual responsibility) |
See above. The assumption that everything comes down to individual choice and responsibility is just as ideological, if not more so, than communism.
quote:
It's the economic fairytale I have problems with. |
Me too... the idea that everything falls back on individual choice and responsibility is a fairytale. The invisible hand anmd the assumption that markets are infallible and will always do the right thing is a fairy tale. The assumption that all men are born equal is a fairy tale.
Markets fail, individual choice and responsibility is more often than not individual necessity and dependency, the invisible hand can slap you in the face, and inequality between men is one of the great constants of history. If communism is a fairy tale, this does not detract from the fact that much the rhetoric of capitalism is just as airy-fairy.
quote:
Kid...one question regarding your last post. Do you understand that human constructs/inventions (such as electricity and economic systems) exist to serve the needs of human beings, and not...I repeat NOT the other way around? |
Marx couldn't have put it better himself. I suppose he simply differed on how best to turn these things to the service of human beings. Personally, I think a normative and conscious commitment to developing an economic system from which all human beings derive benefit is far less fetishistic as putting one's trust in some "invisible hand".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dracon II
The fundamental difference between capitalists and communists is their differing conceptions of equality. Correct me if I'm wrong... I'm just giving a rough sketch here...
Capitalism, or at least the classical liberal justification of capitalism, rests on the belief that all men are equal. This is best summarized in the declaration of independence. However, the equality is moral, not material. Capitalists rest on the idea of inherent equality and use it to promote political and legal equality. Thus arises the assumption that everyone has equality of opportunity and ability, and that there is therefore a justification for economic inequality. The rich simply worked hard. Thus, capitalists rely heavily on the human agency/will and the interaction of human agency/will as the basis of their social system.
Communists however, see equality differently. The abstraction of equality to the moral, political and legal spheres ignores the fact that one of the most basic forms of inequality is material inequality. Material and productive riches constituting the most potent form of power in a capitalist society, communists see the bracketing of equality in the state as a means of justifying and mystifying the gross inequality that exists in civil society. Furthermore, it also mystifies the greater political and legal power that the richer people have as influential and powerful actors in society. The separation of state and civil society is thus a ruse disguising the fact that the two are inseparable and mutually determined.
Thus the difference is that capitalists see equality as an a priori quality inherent in all humans, and use it justify really existing inequality by pointing to the formal equality that all people have within the state, and communists see the really existing inequality and concoct a teleological philosophy in order to justify it's elimination.
|
Capitalists were historically concerned with equal opportunity, because it allows them the opportunity to exploit the workers. True equality of all people is just talk for them. They really only mean themselves. Communists know that people without the means to exploit people can not be equal in a capitalist system. Capitalist idea of equality is not equality for workers.
quote:
My personal view is that humans are endowed with different and unequal capacities, and are distributed across areas with unequal capacities and are born into situations of unequal quality, and that eliminating inequality altogether would take far too much effort and coercion for what it would be worth. Society should concentrate of maximizing equality and utility, but should not commit itself to absolute equality as a goal, merely the amelioration of suffering, want, ignorance and idleness for the lowest of society, and the provision of opportunities for upward mobility. I believe that the assumption of equality anaesthetizes us against the indignity of inequality, but I also believe the ultimate elimination of inequality is a dream.
I simply believe that a commitment to raising the standards of living is necessary in the short term. In the long term, a commitment to making economics sustainable is necessary. If capitalism is allowed to ride roughshod across the world, it is only likely to make the ultimate social consequences and the next mode of production more intolerable for everyone, not least the capitalist. I don't believe that anything should be taken to the extreme. And thus capitalism needs to be regulated by an impartial state that has long term interests and sustainability in mind.
Most societies since at least antiquity have had some form of market operating within their economy. However, the concept of a "market economy" is quite a novelty in historical terms. It's my belief that a market economy is inherently unstable in the long term. The ultimate problem with today's society is that our capacity to stabilize and restrain the market is diminishing, as a global market emerges that has no real political overseer.
|
The only way a capitalist economy to survive is increasing exploitation of the workers. When exploitation stops increasing the financial markets will fail and profits will drop. A financial crisis will insue that the managers of the economy will not be able to manage. In short, there is no way that a regulated market can meet the objectives of communists.
quote:
quote:
I just don't think people ought to be paid more because they can do something that someone else can't. |
Noble ideal, but hard work should be rewarded. We can't rely on voluntarism, or on political rewards. A just society rewards effort and service with real benefits.
|
We weren't talking about effort. We were talking about having a talent for something where there is more demand for your skill than there are people with the talent.
Good post.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-05-2005 20:40
|