 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Maniac
|
 |
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Mr. Fun, I'm pretty far from being a Communist, but I'll give answering the question a go:
I think it's a simple matter of lacking the courage of their convictions.
It's easy to *say* you're a communist (though why you'd want to say as much is something of a mystery to me, given its dismal track record), while posting on the internet from your privately owned computer, just before jetting off to Disney Land next month. It's not nearly so easy to actually live it (especially in the face of the constant pressures of all the evil capitalist empires out there).
Of course, the Commies will be quick to say that it (Communism) never really got a fair shake, on account of all the dictators who co-opted their perfect little world (Stalin-ism, Mao-ism, insertyourfavoritetinpotdictatorhere-ism), without acknowledging that flaws in the system (or as they prefer to say, flaws in humanity) are what makes the dictator's rise to power not only possible, but also pre-determined! Even better, they'll tell you that the reason it hasn't worked so far is because it was designed to be a global system, and if we'd all just try it out, magically, everything would fall into place (nevermind the fact that if it doesn't work on a small scale there's ZERO reason to expect it to be scalable, but that's another matter).
So at the end of the day, who can blame you? How much conviction can you really PUT into something with the kind of track record that Communism has?
-=Vel=- |
I'm far from being a communist, but I'll ask a similar question to all the Republicans, free marketeers and economical right-wingers here who believe government intervention is bad and who ever bought or drank European wines (French champagne or so - well, perhaps you'd call it Freedom Champagne): Why did you drink them? You do realize Europe has a strong protectionist policy concerning everything related with agriculture, don't you?
Personally I think it's a simple matter of lacking the courage of your convictions. Obviously you're just a bunch of weak-willed morons.
It's easy to *say* you're against government intervention or subsidies (though why you'd want to say as much is something of a mystery to me, given its dismal track record), while just having the luck of being born in a welfaring middle class family, or being the one who had the luck of getting a good job while many others with the same talents didn't get one due to a bad economic situation. It's not nearly so easy to actually live it (especially in the face of the constant meddling of all the evil governmental laws out there).
Of course, the laisser-faire free marketeers will be quick to say that it (laisser-faire) never really got a fair shake, on account of all the poor people - all criminals and lazy bastards if you ask them - who co-opted their perfect little world (such dreadful things as health care, education and public transport), without acknowledging that flaws in the free market system (or as they prefer to say, flaws in humanity) are what makes those government interventions not only desirable, but also necessary! Even better, they'll tell you that the reason it hasn't worked so far is because it was designed to be a global system, and if we'd all just try it out, magically, everything would fall into place (never mind the fact that if it doesn't work on a small scale there's ZERO reason to expect it to be scalable, but that's another matter).
So at the end of the day, who can blame you? How much conviction can you really PUT into something with the kind of track record that laisser-faire has?
-=Maniac=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
Nice try, Maniac, but your example was less than stellar.
Personally, I don't drink, and so fall outside the population of "French wine drinkers" in the first place, and in the second, it's not a diametric position to the original question posed (the diametric position is between Communists and Free Marketeers, not between Pure Free Marketeers and those who favor a range (from mild to some) of Governmental controls--which amounts to shades of gray.
As to the "accident of birth" thing....I don't buy it. Never have. I did not come from a family of means at all (unless you call living out of a red station wagon for the better part of a year as a child "well off"  ), and although I'm certainly no Bill Gates, I'm heads and shoulders above where I came from, and not because of having a silver spoon shoved up my arse, either.
Work and diligence. Amazing what it can accomplish.
Finally, capitalism has proved to be the most efficient means of allocating resources of any system that's yet come along. If a better way presents itself, it is in the nature of capitalism to adopt it, and it will change accordingly. This has been the case in every scale it's been tried on.
So....nice try, bonus points for an interesting slant, but ultimately, not much of a troll.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
Where the hell does this notion that communits have to live in poverty come from? Can anyone point this out to me? Quote it?
First question is, what type of communism? Old fashioned Marxism? marxist/leninism? Maoism? They are not the same. Both maoist and Marxist advocate common ownership, but Marxst see only wokers as the class than can do it, while maoist see the peasant as being ablke to do so as well. The Khmer Rougue were communists, but they killed the very people (the educated elite) that a marxist would want to endoctrinate. To say simply "communist" then is wrong.
As for the marxists: according to marx true communism can only come once a certain level of industrial production is reached. Marx readilly admits that Capitalism is the economic form that leads to the greatest production, but what he cares about is not ever increasing porduction, but the ability of man to enjoy this, to end his alienation. Only Capitalism can set the groundwork for this by creating an economic structure so productive that it sets up the conditions for its fall.
As for luxuries: if luxury is derived form the exploitation of the workers, then somene who believes in communism should give it up. But if it was made by an artisan, or soemone who is not being exploited, then what would be the porblem? Compuetrs and cars today are ahrdly made by horribly exploited workers (poor robots!...). Now, you have a better argument with Nike sneakers and other cheap consumer goods that are the result many times of worker exploitation.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Maniac
|
|
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:28
|
|
quote:
and in the second, it's not a diametric position to the original question posed (the diametric position is between Communists and Free Marketeers, not between Pure Free Marketeers and those who favor a range (from mild to some) of Governmental controls |
I know that, but some right-wingers seem to call you a communist from the moment you are in favour of a degree of government intervention. To say it with a picture of Tassadar:
http://apolyton.net/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=2073148
Heck, Imran Siddiqui called me a communist a few weeks back, while I'm actually only meritocratic (equal opportunities) and not really socialist (in the sense of "the government simply pays workless people indefinitely instead of providing more jobs"). Though I am of course an "étatist", as I don't trust the "invisible hand" of the free market.
And since some right-wingers call all leftists communists, I thought I'd generalize as well and call all rightists laisser-faire free marketeers.
quote:
As to the "accident of birth" thing....I don't buy it. Never have. |
I know you don't. We've already had a discussion about that some time ago. IIRC it kind of ended in "Let's agree to disagree." My answer back then was the same as now. You are an exception. I'm pretty sure there are lots of people in the "lower" classes that have similar talents and the same will to get up that you had, but simply didn't have the opportunities. You could then answer that there are such things as student loans, or make a statement like "As long as you work hard enough, you'll end up where you want to.", but many sociological studies contradict those arguments. Those studies say there is a great correlation between the socio-economical status of the oriental family (the family you grew up in) and the procreational family (your own wife and kids). Unless you would claim that all lower class people are lazy, which I hope you don't think since you seem to come from the lower classes yourself, the only explanation I can think of is that there are structural and cultural factors that prevent large social mobility in a society, that prevent lower class people to climb the ladder.
quote:
Finally, capitalism has proved to be the most efficient means of allocating resources of any system that's yet come along. |
Well I wouldn't say that: it kind of depends in whose hands you want all the resources to end in. But it's certainly the system that has created the biggest technological advancement and raw economical growth, apart then from the period 1930-'40, when the Soviet Union had one of the biggest economical growths ever realized in the world - at a great cost of course.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
The West is at a much higher level of technology and productivity than the USSR was then though. Supply is not a problem now and wouldn't in a centrally planned system. |
Then why are people starving?
The world already produces enough food to feed everyone - it's the distribution that sucks.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-06-2003 20:32
My ideal is a fusion of free market and worker ownership of property.
|