 |
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:29
|
|
I'm not a dweller of this thread and I don't intend to be, but I have a small reservation over what Vel has wrote in the first page IIRC.
He argued that the economic well-being of the capitalist USA was vastly superior to the economic well-being of USSR. If we take the quantifiable elements (i.e amount of mass consumption products available to the average citizen), this is undoubtedly true.
Howver, the idea that Soviet citizens were dead poor or dead unequipped is wrong, at least if you consider urban Soviets during the times of Brezhnev - Gorbatshev. Whereas Stalin has only concentrated on heavy industry, engulfing most USSR's resources in it, consumer goods became increasingly significant in the Soviet / COMECON economy after the fall of Stalin. 70's and 80's COMECONers, at least in urban areas, had many consumer goods at disposal : TV and radio sets, increased variety of foods and clothes, heat and habitation, and the lucky ones had their personal car.
I think the relatively poor development of consumer goods came from the fact that the economy was still dependent of heavy industry and military industry, and not enough money was poured into establishing a good supply of consumer goods.
Of course, even the most consumer-friendly planned economy couldn't have competed with the capitalist Disneyland we are living in, since the concept of "artificially creating a desire in order to satisfy it" (read publicity) is completely alien to a planned economy. That's why there could have never been as much variety in an advanced planned economy as in an advanced capitalist economy.
However, in comparison to many capitalist countries which had begun their industrialization later (South Korea and Taiwan being the most successful examples), the Soviet way of life in the 70's and 80's was pretty comfortable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Yep! Let's talk about those:
Depression: All sorts of reasons people get depressed. One of them is poverty. Another is standing in a bread line for two days wondering if you'll get to eat! Doesn't really strengthen your arugument, doesn't really hurt it.
|
Ah, I'm glad you thought I was talking about mental illness, because that is another one. Remember that you keep saying that capitalism is succeeding. That whould have nothing to do with communism, but if you really think that we can't produce enough bread in the US because of the economic system you don't have any idea of the amount of food that we are capable of producing. We could eliminate hunger here in the US and much of the world if we chose to do so.
Then there is the other kind of depression caused by unemployment. I await your response to that. How is that not failure?
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Poverty: A problem in capitalist societies, true, and a plus for your side. There are 32 million folks technically living "in poverty" in the US. That's bad, but not as bad as you make it out to be, for the reasons I've already outlined (go back 1-2 pages).
|
You did horrible at that. Appearantly you didn't see my argument that the poverty numbers could actually be higher than 32 million. Arguing about the numbers is a good strategy for you, but you should really be ashamed of yourself for justifying a system that creates poverty at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Crime: Soviet Russia had a black market. Crime is not a capitalist invention. Again, doesn't hurt your argument, but it doesn't really help it, either.
|
This isn't about Russia, but since you bring it up, Russia is riddled with crime now. This is about the failure of the US to handle crime. I've already shown that crime is the consequence of capitalism. You didn't counter that.
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
The Third World: Is a mish mash of fledgling democracies holding on by their fingernails, and tin-pot dictatorships. About all that anybody can say about the third world is that it's undeveloped at this point.
That is neither the fault of communism or capitalism.
-=Vel=-
|
Crap. If you don't want to accept the record of capitalism why do you keep on bringing up the record of communism.
edit: Ah yes and just to add another one of my arguments. War is another failure of capitalism, and we might as well add Imperialism to that. Hmmm... lets see if I can come up with more.
edit: Ah drup abuse, alcohol abuse and suicide.
edit: Sickness and decease related to poverty and inequality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
GePap: Even as stubborn as you are, you must concede that saying:
"as communism is working now in practice"
is the correct use of the word and phrase, not
"as communism is working now in performance"
And that's as far as I'll go down the semantics road with you, 'k? 
drizzle...shower....RAIN! |
As stubburn as you are in understanding: to use your example: one performs surgery, one practices medicine/ Medice=/ surgery. I guess you prepare the same for a drizzle, a shower, or a downpour. Your dry cleaning bills must be high.
quote:
And I've said from the start, debating the paper theory is meaningless. Let's see it in action, and then we'll have something to talk about. |
"Paper theory" is not meaningless. Capitalism begun as "paper theory". Christianity remains "paper theory" as well, to a great extent. It is this disregard for ideas that I find so strange. Idea is as important as practice, and I place it above it, since it is idea that gets the ball rolling in the frst place.
quote:
That would be like debating the baseball game before it is played. Just....not all that much to talk about, is there?
-=Vel=- |
Actually, there would ba a great deal to talk about. I wonder if you ever heard pof fantasy baseball? and what about all the talk before the World Series? No, you are right, no one says ahything about an upcoming sporting event: it would be silly, you can only discuss an posrting event after the fact, never, ever, ever before it has been played out. That would be madness.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
You’re just too much, Kid! Okay, since you weren’t paying attention the last several times, let’s try this again:
1) Depression. Is a problem the world over. Sometimes (certainly not always) depression is caused by economic difficulties, and in those cases (assuming the person in question is living in a capitalist country) then yes, that’s at least partially to blame (I say “at least partially” because if the person is depressed because his/her whole sense of self worth is tied to his/her economic worth, then the person has deeper problems than “capitalism.”
2) Mental Illness: Aruging that mental illness is the fault of ANY economic system is pure tripe.
3) (subset of depression caused by unemployment) : Again, if a person bases their entire sense of self worth on having a job, then that person has more problems than living under a particular economic system
4) Poverty: Go back and re-read my posts. I don’t feel like retyping all of those long-a$$ posts again, when you can simply scroll back.
5) Russia is in transition. It’s not really an anything right now, other than an economic train wreck. Given time, it will sort itself out.
6) Crime existed in Russia, and it exists in every communist nation there is….if it didn’t…why would you guys need jails, and why would they be full?
7) Third World: Look it up. The third world is a hodge podge of barely surviving democracies and tin pot dictators. They have lots of problems. So many that which economic system they happen to have sorta running in their countries don’t even make the top twenty.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
You’re just too much, Kid! Okay, since you weren’t paying attention the last several times, let’s try this again:
1) Depression. Is a problem the world over. Sometimes (certainly not always) depression is caused by economic difficulties, and in those cases (assuming the person in question is living in a capitalist country) then yes, that’s at least partially to blame (I say “at least partially” because if the person is depressed because his/her whole sense of self worth is tied to his/her economic worth, then the person has deeper problems than “capitalism.”
|
Why don't you explain this theory of communist business cycle to all of us. That's a new one on me.
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
2) Mental Illness: Aruging that mental illness is the fault of ANY economic system is pure tripe.
|
Mental illness is caused by poverty. Poverty is caused by capitalism. That's pretty simple stuff. Psychologists tell us that. What is the problem with your logic. I guess you're just stubborn like GePap says.
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
3) (subset of depression caused by unemployment) : Again, if a person bases their entire sense of self worth on having a job, then that person has more problems than living under a particular economic system
|
I honestly believe that you do base your whole self-worth on your earning ability. That is obvious the way you seem to think you are superior. Sadly, I think you would have a serious mental breakdown if you lost your wealth. Our self-worth is not just formed by ourselves. It's socially conditioned. It takes a real effort to get away from our social conditioning, and you have a long way to go.
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
4) Poverty: Go back and re-read my posts. I don’t feel like retyping all of those long-a$$ posts again, when you can simply scroll back.
|
Victory by Default
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
5) Russia is in transition. It’s not really an anything right now, other than an economic train wreck. Given time, it will sort itself out.
|
Your big on Russia. Ok, whatever. I'm not, Russia is broke ****. It's been trying to make the transition for over 10 years and is showing little or no progress. It still suffers from the same problems it did before. The problems are just worse.
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
6) Crime existed in Russia, and it exists in every communist nation there is….if it didn’t…why would you guys need jails, and why would they be full?
|
Try to stay on the subject. We are talking about capitalism. I gave you several statistics that show that crime is caused by the economic system. Do you have an argument, or do I win this one by default also.
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
7) Third World: Look it up. The third world is a hodge podge of barely surviving democracies and tin pot dictators. They have lots of problems. So many that which economic system they happen to have sorta running in their countries don’t even make the top twenty.
-=Vel=- |
And Russia has problems too. The economics system doesn't seem to be the biggest, although I would say that Russia is definitely worse off with capitalism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
Kid, you are the best!
I must commend you, btw. Never mind the fact that your "plan" for the glorious revolution scares the hell out of me, at least you're out there, laying out specifics. Good job for that.
As to your most recent posts:
Why don't you explain this theory of communist business cycle
Okay, I'll admit. You lost me. How this relates to depression is WAAAAY beyond me. Further, when did I ever talk about a "communist business cycle" (genuinely confused by this)
Mental illness is caused by poverty.
Cite?
I honestly believe that you do base your whole self-worth on your earning ability. That is obvious the way you seem to think you are superior. Sadly, I think you would have a serious mental breakdown if you lost your wealth. Our self-worth is not just formed by ourselves. It's socially conditioned. It takes a real effort to get away from our social conditioning, and you have a long way to go.
Projecting again, are we? 
Victory by Default
Translation: I can't be arsed to scroll back.
Your big on Russia.
YOU brought Russia up that time, by asking about it.
Try to stay on the subject. We are talking about capitalism.
Ummm....the title of the thread is Communism vs. Capitalism. Clearly, we're talking about both. I know, it's not as much fun to have to face up to the fact that crime existed in your utopia (nor that the rate of alcaholism in the USSR was HUGE), but it IS a comparison/contrast thread, no?
Why don't you start a capitalism vs feudalism argument? Seriously, this is a very bad strawman argument.
Strawman? How 'bout the fact that capitalism didn't even EXIST for the greater bulk of human history, and yet you are blaming it for ever war that's ever been.
Sheesh....
Flare!  Hey buddy! Yep...that's me, stirring up trouble again....just like you taught me....
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
Ahh, sdo your private company will get into space riding on the backs of one of the crowning glories of soviet engineering...... interesting, no? Ad to visit the product of government central planning as well.....
The core of the porblem of your argument Vel is as follows:
Obviously you are a particularist, you must be, given your disregard for theory, and your belieef that meaning coems from the little details of life. Well then, if tat is so, then the whole of your argument amounts to "disproving" the Authoritarian, from the top model of communism that coems from Marxist-Leninist and Maoist ideologies. Notice though, the only way you can disrove Coomunism as a general theory is to argue that the only possible form of communisms are these two, but that would (and does) require theoretical arguemts to be made by you on that subject. If you are unwilling to provide theoretical arguemnts about why the forms of communism that have been are the only ones that can be, and that any in the futue would face the same difficulties and challenges, from within and without then your argument can't move forwards, and you can only ever claim to have "disproven" what no longer is.
Wow, good job there, buddy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:29
|
|
Damn server ate my response. This one won't be as good.
The link is inside the quote below.
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Mental illness is caused by poverty.
Cite?
Poverty and mental illness
quote:
Of all threats to physical health, and mental health in particular, poverty is without a doubt the most fearsome.
The highest incidence of sickness, disability, and mortality of behavioral and psychiatric origin is concentrated in the low-income populations.
Extreme poverty is the world’s most merciless assassin and the principal cause of suffering on this earth. It is the principal cause of reduced life-expectancy, handicap, disability and hunger. Poverty is a prime factor that contributes to mental illness, stress, suicide, the disintegration of the family unit and substance abuse. For many, the prospect of a long life is seen more as a punishment than a reward (WHO,1995). |
|
Yeah, poverty causes mental retardation too as well as all kinds of crap.
One thing I would like to know is why YOU think that you didn't know this.
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
I honestly believe that you do base your whole self-worth on your earning ability. That is obvious the way you seem to think you are superior. Sadly, I think you would have a serious mental breakdown if you lost your wealth. Our self-worth is not just formed by ourselves. It's socially conditioned. It takes a real effort to get away from our social conditioning, and you have a long way to go.
Projecting again, are we?
|
I'm no psychologist, but the fact that someone works four jobs to get ahead is pretty telling I think.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
I thought you'd enjoy that, GePap.
And yes, there are others (one here in the states) offering a much shorter (2.5 minute) trip into space--'bout as long as the Wright Brothers' first flight--which would have technically met your criterion, but I thought it a delicious irony that rather than tear down the biggest achievement of old Soviet Russia, the fledgling capitalists there are actually putting it to good, productive use.
Of course, when I posted the link, I knew YOU would quickly jump on it (predictibility....I LOVE it!), and try to somehow use it to further the argument of your side.
But it's no longer in the hands of the central planning group, is it? And rather than tear it down, the capitalists in russia's train wreck economy are trying to put it to good use (and I just might help support them in that effort!)
As to your label of me.... Particularist...I like that. Has an interesting ring to it.
No...I do not utterly disregard theory. Theory has its place, and its fascination.
What is NOT useful, in terms of theory, is to take a completely hypothetical economic system which exists solely on paper and compare it to a currently enacted and working economic system.
One is smoke and mirrors. Conjecture. One is fact. No valid comparisons can be made of the two.
So...the choices are to REALLY get out there in fantasy land, comparing your paper economic system with an equally idealized capitalistic system (which has nothing whatsoever to do with the day to day world, at that point, since purestrain systems will likely never exist), or, we can compare systems that DO exist.
My argument has been, and remains that whatever the paper theory says about communism, it has been an entirely different creature from communism in its actual implementation, and every TIME it has been implemented, we see the same basic patterns developing (which I'll not go into again, since I've already outlined them at least half a dozen times).
You want to compare a phantom to reality, and I'm saying that such a comparison is pointless (which is WHY I'm not interested in the theoretical aspects of it....it's just not comparable with capitalism--an existing system--that you would compare it to.
As to disproving other possible outcomes of communist implementation...I know you'd LIKE me to do that, cos then you wouldn't have to debate your side (I could just debate both sides), but....you are the one arguing for the red side....it falls to you to convince US that history won't repeat itself...again...
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
I thought you'd enjoy that, GePap.
And yes, there are others (one here in the states) offering a much shorter (2.5 minute) trip into space--'bout as long as the Wright Brothers' first flight--which would have technically met your criterion, but I thought it a delicious irony that rather than tear down the biggest achievement of old Soviet Russia, the fledgling capitalists there are actually putting it to good, productive use. |
Leaving earths atmospehre all together sort of space, or very high in the atmospehre sort of space? Oh, and until they get someone to orbit the earth (Gagarin was u there for about an hour on his first flight), the best you can say is that US netreprise today is almost caught up with Soviet industry of 1960...wow.
quote:
As to your label of me.... Particularist...I like that. Has an interesting ring to it.
No...I do not utterly disregard theory. Theory has its place, and its fascination.
What is NOT useful, in terms of theory, is to take a completely hypothetical economic system which exists solely on paper and compare it to a currently enacted and working economic system.
One is smoke and mirrors. Conjecture. One is fact. No valid comparisons can be made of the two. |
Anything for which you can show some evidence or good models is usefull for theory. Relativity came before Einstein could show it at work. You keep using derivative metaphors (smoke and mirrios) instead of valid reasoning. Modern economist do compare this system to a theoretical "perfect capitalism" which they strive towards. After all, take the notion of privatazing SS: no state has a private public pension plan. Those pushing it are pushing it out of THeory. I must assume you disapprove of the plan, given that it is based solely on "smoke and mirrors".
quote:
So...the choices are to REALLY get out there in fantasy land, comparing your paper economic system with an equally idealized capitalistic system (which has nothing whatsoever to do with the day to day world, at that point, since purestrain systems will likely never exist), or, we can compare systems that DO exist. |
Why? can you give an argument why debating systems as are has any relevance if utterly divorced from debating how system could be? Personally, i don' think so.
quote:
My argument has been, and remains that whatever the paper theory says about communism, it has been an entirely different creature from communism in its actual implementation, and every TIME it has been implemented, we see the same basic patterns developing (which I'll not go into again, since I've already outlined them at least half a dozen times). |
And if the half-dozen attempts were all based on a single first example driven by faulty ideology, you still only disprove the one form of orthodozy followed.
quote:
You want to compare a phantom to reality, and I'm saying that such a comparison is pointless (which is WHY I'm not interested in the theoretical aspects of it....it's just not comparable with capitalism--an existing system--that you would compare it to. |
There is no such thing as "reality" outside of the meanings man imposes on the world. You yourself above said that what exsts is not real theoretical cpaitalism, so how can you possibly call yourself a champion of capitalism when you admint it doesn't really exist in form, and you care only about defending the current model, since the current model is and thus must be true and correct?
quote:
As to disproving other possible outcomes of communist implementation...I know you'd LIKE me to do that, cos then you wouldn't have to debate your side (I could just debate both sides), but....you are the one arguing for the red side....it falls to you to convince US that history won't repeat itself...again...
-=Vel=- |
I would like you to try becuase it would inherently force you to face up to your basic assumptions and either back them up, or perhaps discover that are baseless. Either way you come out better. Mill was correct when he said that if one stops explorings "the truth" it looses meaning. Right now, I can not see that your belieefs have any basis in reason, but are blind faith in the particulars.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
The etiology of schizophrenia is unknown, but the conditions necessary for its appearance are environmental stress and individual vulnerability
Poverty is a prime factor that contributes to mental illness,….
Still reading but these two quotes jump out at me.
1) The etiology is not known.
1a) LOTS of things cause environmental stress—like, oh, say, being threatened by the party bosses that your family will disappear
2) Says here that poverty is a prime factor. “A” meaning that there are other “prime factors” as well, as in, poverty is one of the factors. Not the cause. Not the only factor.
Further, per the article you sent me to:
More than a third of the world’s illnesses would be preventable if we could change the behaviors that increase the risk of illness
So, the article itself stresses that more than one third of the problem is behavioral in nature (ie – even if poverty was no longer an issue, if basic behavioral changes were not made, the illness would still occur). Unless you are now going to argue that poverty is a behavioral pattern, rather than an economic condition?
Further, given that poverty existed in the USSR, and given that it exists today in China, one can hardly attribute poverty as being in the exclusive domain of capitalism (since neither of those systems were capitalistic).
But that hurts your argument, so we'll just ignore it, right?
-=Vel=-
(as you say....educate yourself )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
Of course you would like me to try, GePap (said so in my last post, even!). But it really wouldn't be all that entertaining for me to debate both sides of the same issue, so I shall refrain.
Now you can muddy the waters all you want (which you DO seem to love to do), spouting phrases like "there is no truth" (tell that to the guy standing in the bread line, will you--you're haven't REALLY been standing in line for two days waiting for a few crumbs...why? Cos GePap said so, of course! but doing so does nothing for the debate.
Right now, you and I aren't even debating the original issue (and haven't been for some time). At best, we're debating about the debate, which I find, frankly silly, but given your love of semantics games and such, it comes as no great surprise. Rather than debate the matter at hand, you prefer to mosey off into bizzare directions, make some apples to oranges comparisons and call it a day, and hey! If that's your preference, have at it! It is not, however, my preference. If we're going to make comparisons, and if they are going to have meaning, then we should make comparisons of like systems (capitalism as it is now, to communism as it is now). A theoretical discussion of the idealized versions of either does nothing to answer the questions of whether or not they have been successful in their implementation.
But you're a smart fellow. You already know this. I'm just not playing your game and it frustrates you....
And yes....imagine....private enterprise (you know....having to worry about profit, loss, and lawsuits, and more) took a while to catch up to the monolithic state who could throw money and lives at space flight without having to answer to anyone. Shocking....
So...shall we continue debating about the debate of the debate, or playing cutsy games with semantics, or do you have something to add regarding communism, and how it might be implemented differently next time so as not to end up as totalitarian state? (GASP! Vel asking for theory! Will wonders never cease?!)
-=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 21:59
|