 |
| |
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Inertia, not slow change, and if you want to wind back the IT clock, then you can kiss things like the Human Genome Project and most other new technology, including internet, goodbye for decades. We wouldn't be talking to each other in a communist system, unless we had some evil capitalists and their innovations to sponge off of.
|
Why do you think we won't have the internet?
Technology will advance at a rate that we choose for it to advance. I just don't see that it is efficient for the system to make so many changes in organization. That is a con for capitalism, not a pro. There are a lot of resources and training wasted in such a dynamic system.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
One of the most fun times I've had with toys was touring Soviet navy ships in San Diego. An Udaloy and a Sovremenny, pride of the Soviet navy, newest ship classes, and 20-25 years behind US technology. 
Keep up the good work, comrades.  |
We won't need any warships in the future
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
Wish I didn’t have to sleep, but….getting too old to pull all-nighters and sit up debating. Lots to respond to:
Templar:
” I would argue that the keys to success are political checks and ballances and the rule of law. The Soviets did not have co-equal branches of government that could check each other.”
And
” Communism is about a centrally planed economy, not a central government dominated by a single branch.”
Thus, I would put forth that I am not conflating two issues at all. You were the one to first make mention of one of the failings of the communist experiments that have been tried, indicating that one of the reasons FOR those failings has been the lack of co-equal branches of government. Thus, governmental power is now intimately tied to the argument itself.
Then, you go on to imply that somehow you mean to run this centrally planned economy without getting the government involved (because if you do not separate the two, then by default, the branch of the government that is given control over the economy WILL overpower the others)? Who will have charge of the central planning of the economy, if not the government?
I think that MtG has already addressed the IT point, so I’ll not chime in there.
Wal-Mart: How did you hear about the “current debacle” Isn’t that what the latest Wal-Mart lawsuit was about?
To Kid:
1) What's up with the whole "group before individual" thing?
It's common practice to talk about SOCIAL science in regard to SOCIETY. Arguing that a system is beneficial to individuals is not really social science. It's just a group of individuals high jacking the govt to exploit the masses.
But that really doesn’t answer the question, does it? I mean, in Capitalist societies, we have social scientists too, and yet, our society is very much driven at the individual level. We celebrate the power of the individual. In the system you are proposing (and in the examples we have seen implemented so far), the self….the individual (where he is allowed to exist at all) is subverted. Subordinate to the state. This is markedly different from celebrating the power of the individual. I am asking you….why? Why destroy that which is most unique in humanity?
Further, if you say “no,” the new party bosses of the glorious revolution will not get the same perks as the old guard did in the past, what do you plan to do to prevent it from occurring.
Let’s say we’re at day 0 of the glorious revolution. How do you prevent a handful of the upper echelon of party faithful from grabbing power and keeping more for themselves? What mechanisms do you put in place to guard against it?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
So it'll be nothing personal then, when you ship masses off to re-education camps (and you must, to make it work), or make whole "counter-revolutionary families" disappear in the night (again, you must, else you will have their corruptive presence in your midst, yes?)?
Nahhh, we don't hate you....we just....need your stuff. That kind of thing?
I think I begin to see....to depersonalize it so, the individual MUST be overlooked entirely. If you focus on sending ten thousand to be "re-educated," that's easier to stomach than sending my ex-friend Bill, his wife Mary, and their three kids. When you start looking at the individual faces, it gets exponentially harder.
Or, is it that you and Kid are on an entirely different page? That happened in the last thread....each communist arguing for something entirely different, and it could be the case here as well.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
It's common practice to talk about SOCIAL science in regard to SOCIETY. Arguing that a system is beneficial to individuals is not really social science. It's just a group of individuals high jacking the govt to exploit the masses.[/i]
But that really doesn’t answer the question, does it? I mean, in Capitalist societies, we have social scientists too, and yet, our society is very much driven at the individual level.
|
Yes, there are right wing social scientists, but they argue that their policies benefit society by emphasizing the individual. That's what you have to show. You have to blame all the bad things on policies that don't emphasize individualism. You can't just justify human suffering by saying they are lazy. You have to place responsibility with the social system, because it doesn't matter if they are lazy or not as long as they are made better off by the social system. Social scientists are no more religious than other scientists. They don't care if people are lazy or not, only that they get what they want and need.
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Further, if you say “no,” the new party bosses of the glorious revolution will not get the same perks as the old guard did in the past, what do you plan to do to prevent it from occurring.
Let’s say we’re at day 0 of the glorious revolution. How do you prevent a handful of the upper echelon of party faithful from grabbing power and keeping more for themselves? What mechanisms do you put in place to guard against it?
-=Vel=- |
Corruption is more a cause of the society, not the political or economic system. The USSR became much more corrupt as they started to move away from communism, and now they are more corrupt than ever.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DAVOUT
|
 |
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002
time: 05:28
|
|
It can happen tomorrow.
Kidicious has taken over the US government. Bush is arrested and sent to Guantanamo. Cheney and Rumsfeld flee to Canada where they are invited to stay as long as they wish in Frobisher Bay, (Isle of Baffin), under the condition not to start any political activity.
Day 1.
Viet-Nam recognizes the new regime, immediately followed by China, North Korea and Vanuatu.
Special powers are temporarily granted to Kidicious, until democratic elections are organized.
The $ falls by 50% on all foreign markets.
The first Kidedict decides that only workers will get an income; for the working workers this income will be 40000$ per year, for the non-working workers, it will be 30000$.
Wall-Street opens at 0900, and close at 0906, in the total absence of buy orders.
The second Kidedict organizes the Kidparty. The conditions to become a member are: to be fully convinced the communism is the way to go, that only works creates value, that Kidicious knows the right thing to do, and to accept a glass of beer. Then the new member receives a membership card which qualify him as worker.
Day 2
Somalia recognizes the new regime.
Wall-Street makes an announcement: The stock exchange will reopen as soon as enough buy orders will have been collected. But it would not be realistic to expect a drop of the major indexes lower than 70%.
The third Kidedict decides that the workers living in a rented house will become immediately owner of the said house, and will not have to pay rents in arrear. People enjoying the ownership of a house although they are not workers as per the Second Kidedict, will be charged a monthly tax amounting to 1% of the house value.
News from Texas saying that they make secession and are mobilizing are denied by Kidicious
Foreign currencies sell at enormous premium: CA$=10US$, €= 12US$, Yen=0.1US$
Day 3
EU and Japan jointly reminds the US government that considerable US investments are located in Europe, and considerable European investment are located in the US; those investments are currently protected by international laws and cannot be confiscated; therefore, the EU expects some clarification regarding the confiscation of properties belonging to European citizens. If this was to be confirmed, a fair indemnization should be granted to the legitimate owner.
All ships sailing to US harbours are rerouted.
Kidicious announces that the Kidparty has now 6 millions members, and the recording is only slow down by a shortage of beer.
In a dramatic move, Kidicious made a speech :
Working workers of all breweries, the country is looking at you. Our future depends on your heroism in producing more beer, since this commands the number of party members, and the strength of the party will guarantee the brightness of tomorrow.
We will not let the enemies of the workers demand two beers for signing their membership: we are all equal before the beer. As for those who just drink the beer and not sign at all, they must be put in re-education without delay.
Etc, etc …
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
1) What's up with the whole "group before individual" thing? Sounds like it's a wierd cross between an ant farm and the borg collective to me. Are you guys aware that societies exist to serve those in them, and not the other way around? Why should we switch that, and make individuals exist to serve the state (or "common good" or "whole group" which are some other phrasings I've heard from your camp). Why is that superior to letting folks be....folks? |
IMHO (and I only speak for myself), a group cannot be cohesive and productive without acknowledged rules, and something to watch if these rules are respected. I.E, the "invisible hand" doesn't exist. As the group becomes bigger, these rules have to become more complex, and making them / anforcing them become full-time jobs.
Saying that "the group comes before the indivudal" means that I expect people to abide by these rules (of course, provided they took part in the decision process), to avoid chaos to arise. To me, saying "the individual before the group" is an extremlyly libertarian idea, which means "every individual can do whatever he pleases and to hell with the others or the cohesion of the group".
I don't think anybody here supports the idea of letting rapists do their ugly hobby, or letting serial killers continue their job in name of these criminals' personal freedom. By doing so, you deem the group as more important as these individuals.
If you mean : "using an individual as an expandable resource to save the group", I think this idea should be approached with caution, and every situation where it occurs should be judge indivdually.
I think the survival of the whole group is more important than the survival of an individual belonging to it. That's a common conception in the army, where people are often sent to buy time for the rest of their unit, and too bad for these individuals.
However, except in situations where the survival of many is jeopardized if there is not the sacrifice of a few, I don't think people should be physically sacrificed for the group at all. However, I have no problem with "using" some people more than the others, if it doesn't mean their situation becoming dire. I mean : I have no problem with taxing the rich, with demanding more efficiency to the educated, etc. That's because they have the potential to offer more to the group than other individuals.
Borg Collective ? Hardly... That's what is happening in about every developed country of this planet, at the time we are speaking.
quote:
2) How will you prevent a dictatorial a$$ from siezing power when the "glorious revolution" comes. Isn't that what's happened in every other communist experiment that's been tried. So, if you're going to try it again, what will you do differently to ensure that it doesn't happen? Or, do you not really care that it'll happen? |
I do care, and I actually think that every revolution can only result in a dictatorial takeover. That's because revolutions are fought by organized revolutionary armies, which can hope winning only when strongly hierarchised (the Spanish Civil war shows us the inefficiency of a "democratic" army). The military leaders have no reason to step back once the revolution is over, especially since the population must give a significant effort to rebuild what has been destroyed.
After that, I fail to see how the leaders will give up their power. People are people, and a guy used to have absolute power won't give it back, unless he's a saint of some sort.
That's why I believe socialism should come from progressive change within the democratic frame, rather than from a bloody revolution.
quote:
3) Are the party bosses in the new communist regieme gonna have all the perks they had in the old one? If so, isn't that just a shade umm....contradictory. Workin' man's party and all that? |
It depends on how the communist regime is established. If it is established in a democratic fashion, there is no reason that the bosses get absolute power, especially since most supporters will be extremely wary of any attempt.
If it is established through violence, history will repeat itself over.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
Good points, Spiffor, and we agree on several of them.
The society I live in now has acknowledged rules, and a force that ensures those rules are enforced.
We have this while maintaining strong support of the individual.
What I see in the proposals being fronted here, however, would very definitely law down rules (new rules, obviously, else there would be little point in the revolution), and very definitely enforce them....and then they'd go a step further. Collectivization, by definitition, is placing the individual in the service of the society, and not the other way around (societies did not exist before individuals grouped together and created them....thus we see that the individual "trumps" society in this regard....[i]societies exist to serve the individuals that make up the population....not the other way around[i/].
But in the proposals I'm seeing, it IS the other way around. The individual is unimportant. That works in the army, sure (and is necessary), but do you want to "live" in the army?
I also agree that a "blood revolution" to enact communism will result in the very same (predictable) totalitarian state that it has every other time it has been tried. So my question there is....since it is unlikely in the extreme that communists will be able to convince large numbers of wealthy people to voluntarialy give up their posessions for the "good of the group" is it not also unlikely in the extreme that a peaceful means of instituting the new system can be found?
Which means that blood-letting is the only alternative, and that in turn means....same old story?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
Garth: I agree. The whole certainly can be greater than the sum of its parts. And when does that happen? It happens when we recognize that it's the "parts" that make that happen.
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts precisely BECAUSE we acknowledge the parts.
When we stop doing that, we get "group-think" which has been demonstrated as an unmitigated disaster time and time again. It's the classic: All of us are dumber than one of us line.
You can't just force six people in lab coats into a room and tell them to invent something, and expect miracles, but if you take six individual scientists, each with their own drives, desires, and ambitions, and get them jazzed about a particular thing, you get....magic.
So my question remains, for any communist who would like to answer it. It seems to me that (based on what I've read here, in these discussions) that Communism would subvert the individual (it must, to succeed), how specifically, is that better than allowing individualism to flourish, given the rampant creativity and productivity we have seen that it can bring?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-06-2003 12:08
|