 |
| |
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
LOL....
Sik,
Its way too scary that we think the same.
Og |
I'm sure there are some subtle differences, but for me it's a compliment anyway.
Capitalism is not much more than observation over millenia of human economic behavior, and a very few tenets to assure what its authors considered to be the most efficient model would be preferred.
Communism is nothing more than theory that has failed spectacularly in its many guises, rebirths and rethinkings. It isn't nearly as scientific as capitalism because it was formed as grandiose theory on the spot during a very discreet and fairly unique era of human existence. It lives on today on life support, its only refuges a few dictatorships that cannot survive beyond their own
identification with this failed series of systems, and of course academia, much of which exists apparantly to keep destructive ideas like communism, sexism and racism alive, with varying levels of success.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
Templar - quote:
If NASA was a waste, unplug your damn TV - satellites are involved. Throw out everything with a microprocessor or semiconductor - the needs of minaturization for space travel are primarily responsible for those developments. |
Do me a favor, read my posts and make an effort to respond to what I said before making a point I just addressed. If government throws around billions of dollars, it's bound to come up with something. That doesn't mean the expenditure wasn't a waste.
quote:
The internet? Knock it off with the Al Gore thing. First, he was misquoted, so your playing the fool by repeating it. |
quote:
it was a government invention. |
Government rarely "invents" things, at most, it doles out our money to other people to do research. Did government invent telephone lines and computers? And yet the internet is basicly just a way of connecting these inventions.
quote:
Capitalists are followers, not leaders. |
That way they can watch those innovative commies fall off the cliff.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
* Velociryx wonders if GePap has ever heard the term "corporate culture." Probably not, given the singular definition of culture he seems to want to apply.
|
Corporatye culture applies to the needs of an organization to have a set of internal values to function, since for it to functon all its members need to share this common set of goals (from my organization's class)
quote:
And IN a capitalist culture (used the word again, cos I know you luv me!), there is more incentive to innovate. Whether that innovation stems from state-funded ventures is immaterial, it is still driven by the same capitalist culture (as are all derivative products from it).
|
There is lots of incentive to create, yes there is. As far as innovate (a subset of creation), it varies. Any innovation not well recieved by the market will fail to catch on, and future innovations could very well oerturn the whole capitalist system, as new innovations have upended systems before.
quote:
Yes GePap, I'll grant you, on paper, communism CAN reward innovation. The reason I keep going back to the USSR is because I don't give a rat's a$$ about the theory, as I have stated numerous times. We don't live in theory, we live here....you know....earth? Big blue planet as seen from space? And here on earth, as communism has been implemented EACH AND EVERY TIME it has been trotted out, it brings with it authoritarian, dictatorial powers in charge of a highly centralized government built around control of the command economy.
That's the way it has been IN FACT. Not in theory, but in practice. |
And what is the "truth" of Earth? There is none. You assume there to be some "reality" seeprate from ideas and theories that man could live in, and he fact is that man "as aminal" can, but not man as a sentient being. We think things up, we create, and hence we live in a world of our own making, a world of ideas, hence, change the ideas, change the world.
Maybe you should look at Communist theory after Marx. I personally blame Lenin. It was Lenion who upeneded what was then orthodox communis by saying that, instead of waiting for capitalism to , by its own processes, build the tools of its own downfall and a popular and general revoluto by the working classes (communism from bellow), that a political vanguard could, by overtaking the political system, speed up the whole porcess by making the gvernment pro-revolution. Lenin inserted a "political" fix to what was seen as an "economic" subject. Every communist revolution that has taken place took place in places not yet sometimes even yet at the capitalis stage, far less at the bink of the communist revolution of the workers.
Hence change the theory (from one in which one waits for the ystem to build the tools of the revolution on its own, just wait for it to one in which you pre-empt this and try to nurse the revoltuion along politically), change the world.
quote:
And IN that environment, there is no room, will, or desire for innovation, because those same innovative minds can also be subversive thinkers....they could lead a counterrevolution which could threaten the power of the state, and we can't have that.
No big mystery, but you keep on imagining that there is, 'k? Cos I DO so enjoy taking breaks from packing to come back and see the latest!
-=Vel=- |
And as I have stated a dozen times, what you point to is a political failure whose roots I outline above. What you point to is a POLITICAL process and a failing (as relevant for 15th century China) of authoritarian politics, not the notion of collectivized economies, and since the arguemnt of this thread (wehih you keep extending) is on economic systems, you would do better than to just harp on one POLITICAL issue (no matter how much I may like them).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
Kid: I don't think so. If unemployment was chronically that high, we'd have a major problem, and the system would require an immediate and dramatic change. And if that were the case, I certainly wouldn’t be actively supporting the system, because it would be clearly evident that the system is (fatally) flawed.
But that’s not the case. Unemployment is relatively low, opportunities abound, and by any economic measure you’d care to look at, the system I am arguing for has improved the lives of the greatest number of people in the shortest amount of time.
And what can be said of communist experiments to date?
1) Authoritarian, Dictatorial, Brutal governments
2) Mass killings during “purges” as people were collectivized and property confiscated
3) Little innovation, difficulty keeping up with western (capitalist) societies
4) Failure to accomplish the stated mission of plenty for everyone
So…in light of the fact that the current system is working (albeit imperfectly), and the proposed system has NEVER worked….ummm, no. I’m not particularly inclined to agree.
GePap:
And what is the "truth" of Earth? There is none.
If it pleases you to believe that the earth holds no truth, that’s your bag. It IS true that communist experiments have failed in the past. Every time they have been tried. THAT is one truth. There are plenty of others. If you do not wish to recognize them when they hit you in the face, again….that’s your deal, but just because you close your eyes and say that the moon does not exist does not make it so. 
The *reason* that the political problems inherent cannot be separated from the economic problems in the communist system are because the communists themselves, by virtue of the way communism has been implemented in the real world thus far, have merged the two. The state is the economy. The state was built around control over the centralized economy.
Maybe you should look at Communist theory after Marx.
And maybe you should look at communism in practice. Theory is great for writing papers. Practice is where we live.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
If it pleases you to believe that the earth holds no truth, that’s your bag. It IS true that communist experiments have failed in the past. Every time they have been tried. THAT is one truth. There are plenty of others. If you do not wish to recognize them when they hit you in the face, again….that’s your deal, but just because you close your eyes and say that the moon does not exist does not make it so. |
This is such a trite and inconsequential asnwer, that is all it will get.
quote:
The *reason* that the political problems inherent cannot be separated from the economic problems in the communist system are because the communists themselves, by virtue of the way communism has been implemented in the real world thus far, have merged the two. The state is the economy. The state was built around control over the centralized economy. |
Which leave communist to learn from past mistakes and separate the two and create new theories, does it not? We can leave behind Lenin's contribution and try to go back to the source and innovate from there. Oh, and you are wrong on the last part: the centralized economy was built around the state, not the other way around. The party is a politcal vanguard, meaning that politics lead, not economics. That is why party functionaries did much better (look ma, no equality of ends!) then economists in the system.
quote:
And maybe you should look at communism in practice. Theory is great for writing papers. Practice is where we live |
You know this makes no sense. If we live in practice, we never actually perform...
You speak about innovation all the time Vel, well, what is innovation? A new way of thinking that then leads to a new thing or mode of action. The IDEA comes first, and out of the IDEA comes the thing. If man did live in "practice", there would be no innovation, only improvisation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
Semantics is such a fun game to play, is it not, GePap? 
You said, "there are no truths." Your words, not mine. If you really believe it, then yes, a trite answer is about all that's worth.
Practice IS performance. I know, you'd rather play the semantics game....if I have time later, I might join you for a while, but for the moment, since I'm at work and must keep the window minimized for the most part, I'll steer clear from the colorful semantics debate.
I'm all for the commies coming up with new theories...that'd be great! So far though, what we've seen is not markedly different from the last effort of the big red pony. No thanks.
This debate is actually a good case study for why it won't work.
Neither side in the debate are huddling together planning what to say next. It's just a bunch of individuals (that word...my how it keeps popping up!) debating for one side or the other.
But do you know what's interesting?
All the folks arguing for the capitalist side are all on the same page.
We're not secretly meeting in the chat room to get our story straight, we're just arguing from the reality of the present situation.
Contrast that with the communist side and we get:
Kid arguing for equality of outcomes
GePap scolding us for thinking that communism is about equality of outcomes
Templar arguing for a ballot box revolution
Che arguing along classic Marxist lines
Gepap not really debating, but doing what he and I always do when we disagree in a thread
If you guys can't even get your act together sufficiently to present a coherent argument where it at least APPEARS that everybody is on the same page....what's that say about the theory you are arguing in favor OF?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
That fact, that there is no single argument, points to a diversity of thought, innovation and different ideas. Now, if you want to claim you have the same aguments as JohnT and Imran, well, were did capitalist innovation go, if all you guys are simply spouting orthodoxy?
quote:
Practice IS performance. I know, you'd rather play the semantics game....if I have time later, I might join you for a while, but for the moment, since I'm at work and must keep the window minimized for the most part, I'll steer clear from the colorful semantics debate. |
If practice were performance, therwe would be only one word, not two.
quote:
This debate is actually a good case study for why it won't work. |
Actualy, it isn't. As of yet, you really have only responded to Kid's aguemnts, why not really tackling Templars, or Che's, or mine. Can you porve Templar's arguemnt, and his alone, would not work? Until you do so, you can hardly claim anything close to "victory"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
Dave!
Good attempt at mediation, but no worries! I can’t speak for GePap of course, but there’s no ill will here….this is just….what we do when we disagree (we’re absolute dynamite when we’re on the same side of an issue, but when we butt heads, he brings out the biting sarcasm in me, that’s for sure! )
I think the essence of our differences can be boiled down to this: GePap is a “the world is a deep, vast mystery” kinda guy, and I’m a “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it’s prolly a duck” kinda guy. He thinks I oversimplify, and I think he makes every little thing needlessly complex. Just a difference in methodology, mostly….
And to GePap!:
There’s all sorts of diversity of thought, but in a generalized debate of communism vs. capitalism, we’ve been able to ignore the differences in micro-level methodology and all get on the same basic page, whereas you guys don’t even know what you want to do IF/WHEN the revolution comes! (or even what form it should take—guns blazing, per Kid, ballot box, per Templar).
And the REASON I have not debated much directly with Templar, you, or Che, is because you guys keep harping about what it looks like on paper.
So what? It doesn’t matter what it looks like on paper. Build it and see what it looks like when you’re done! THAT is what matters! Until then, it’s just flowery talk.
Can you porve Templar's arguemnt, and his alone, would not work? Until you do so, you can hardly claim anything close to "victory"
I don’t have to. I’m arguing from the side that’s working *in practice* (that phrase again…dontcha love it!) right now. He’s already admitted that his is pure theory. It’s up to your side to prove it. We’re not going to do your debating for you.
If practice were performance, therwe would be only one word, not two.
Be right back, I have to go make an appointment down at the Medical Performance….erm…Practice….no wait! The doc recently lost his license when he couldn’t afford to carry his malperformance insurance….
GePap….really. I’m disappointed….
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-06-2003 09:46
|