 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
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. |
If you cant debate both sides, you are not that good of a debater. (edit: I lawys meant can't, even if at first it said can)
quote:
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. |
how is pointing out what is at the bottom of the river muddying the waters?
quote:
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. |
The issue was never whether they could be successfull in their implementations. You forget the genesis of these threads, which was the Speer post, in which he argued what the basis of capitalism was, thus the question of what lies at root was there form the beginning. It is only you that refuses to talk about possibilities and sticks only to "implementation". You ased how anyone could know how to allocate resources without the market. I gave you a technical answre to that, whic you never responded to at all.
quote:
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.... |
I questio whether until space travel is made inexpensive, out of the public dole, space will ever be open for porfitable exploration by private enerprise. Some porjects are so huge and risky that only the ublic sector can and will take them on.
quote:
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=- |
I have already stated I am no Marxist-Leninist. I think Lenin was wrong, i think marx was wrong on many details. But communism can exist beyond them. If you fail to understand or graps this, your porblem, not mine. Where Marx was correct, i believe, is that all system build the conditions that eventually bring them to an end, and I do think that after capitalism comes to a end (like mercantalism and feudalism came to an end before it), what follows will be a form of communism. If you feel unable to argue with that, don't try.
Last edited by GePap on 24-06-2003 at 02:09
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
I have already stated I am no Marxist-Leninist. I think Lenin was wrong, i think marx was wrong on many details. But communism can exist beyond them. If you fail to understand or graps this, your porblem, not mine. Where Marx was correct, i believe, is that all system build the conditions that eventually bring them to an end, and I do think that after capitalism comes to a end (like mercantalism and feudalism came to an end before it), what follows will be a form of communism. If you feel unable to argue with that, don't try. |
Perhaps perhaps not. Certainly the world has seen its fair share of governmental revolutions. In almost every case though you can point to a selfish motive that caused the revolution. If and when a communist revolution comes, youcan be assured it will be because the underprivledged are looking to selfishly aquire the wealth of the upper class.
And likewise just as every other government is doomed so would be communism as it does not put the individual first and foremost as is the true want of man.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
Yes! Communism can exist beyond them!
Now...how are you going to go about making that happen?
Given the lessons of history (side note: if there is no truth, do you even acknoledge historical fact, or does it just get tossed as irrelevant?), and the mistakes made in earlier implementations of communism, what would you do differently? How would you ensure that a centralized elite did not spring up?
(and, even tho I poked fun at your net resource browser, it was a good idea....not complete--ie, by itself it would be nothing more than a functional database--but a good start. Build on that. Add to that. I'll listen, and even comment.
Thing is, I never talk about the game before the game.
I never bothered with fantasy football.
Know why? Cos my talking about the game won't change its outcome, and is therefore, not something I care to spend time on.
Talking about the particulars of the game afterwards (and during), yeah, that rocks, but beforehand, it's all speculation. When I want to speculate, I write fiction. I don't speculate with people's lives (which is what a half cocked implementation of communism will cost).
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
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 ) |
Maybe poverty doesn't cause all mental illness, and maybe the blue sky doesn't cause Dubya's roids. I never said either of those things.
Man, it's amazing that you guys are able to rule the world. You can;t even keep up your side of a debate on the things that matter most to you. All you can do is create strawmen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Yes! Communism can exist beyond them!
Now...how are you going to go about making that happen?
Given the lessons of history (side note: if there is no truth, do you even acknoledge historical fact, or does it just get tossed as irrelevant?), and the mistakes made in earlier implementations of communism, what would you do differently? How would you ensure that a centralized elite did not spring up? |
For one thing, start in a state rich enough to make it work: none of the states in which communist revolutions took place were rich, they were all poor. Communism is expensive. Second, no revolutionary vanguard. The process to building it would be slow, form the bottom up. I do beleieve that as capitalism evolves further tensions will rise between it and the democratic system. I can elaborate latter.
quote:
(and, even tho I poked fun at your net resource browser, it was a good idea....not complete--ie, by itself it would be nothing more than a functional database--but a good start. Build on that. Add to that. I'll listen, and even comment. |
But that is all one needs as far as respource allocation, the data to pintpoint were folks want the resources spent. The big issue is with distribution and the manufacturing lines themselves.
quote:
Talking about the particulars of the game afterwards (and during), yeah, that rocks, but beforehand, it's all speculation. When I want to speculate, I write fiction. I don't speculate with people's lives (which is what a half cocked implementation of communism will cost). |
That you dislike it has no relevance to its value. I don;t like Tennis. Doesn;t mean tennis has any less inherent value than something I personally like.
quote:
And likewise just as every other government is doomed so would be communism as it does not put the individual first and foremost as is the true want of man. |
The individual, in the modern sense, has been put first and foremost only in the last 300 years. out of an assumed 100,000 years of homo sapiens sapiens that is an insinificant time of "man's nature".
This being the wettest June on record in NYC, I should go an enjoy this one day of sun and high 80's. S I will check in later, if it hasn't reached 500.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
That you dislike it has no relevance to its value. I don;t like Tennis. Doesn;t mean tennis has any less inherent value than something I personally like.
True. It's also true that what I don't like (specific to this debate--slipshod implementation of communism, for example) also costs lives for poor implementation. They (the folks who lost their lives) don't like it much either. But they can't voice it anymore.
I'm not saying that a thing lacks value because I don't like it. I am saying that it's of little interest to ME (and therefore, won't be something I spend a lot of time discussing, just as you prolly wouldn't be arsed to spend a lot of time talking turkey about tennis).
And I would disagree 'bout the database being all that's needed. If we're going to talk about a "perfect" communist society, then we need to talk about how the "needed" goods and services get delivered, and if there's rationing (ie - each household is allocated X rolls of toilet paper per month....if you need more, tough), or is it simply "push the button and we bring it to your door" - if so, what is to stop rampant exploitation of the system?
The individual, in the modern sense, has been put first and foremost only in the last 300 years. out of an assumed 100,000 years of homo sapiens sapiens that is an insinificant time of "man's nature".
I would disagree. People have always been putting themselves first.
If I'm a bigger caveman, I take what I want (the best women, the best food, etc). Screw you!
Till you figure out how to build a club. Ahhh, now YOU're the big dog. You get the best women, the best food.
Till I figure out how to make a spear, and our positions reverse themselves.
Then you make a bow.
Then I learn to ride a horse.
One could study the tribal histories of the native americans to get another perspective (ie - different from the european historic perspective). The tribes fought, competed for resources, etc (and Kid, they didn't know capitalism existed! ), and put their own individual needs and wants above the needs and wants of others.
Sometimes, those needs and wants were best met by a spirit of cooperation, sometimes not, but the "me first" attitude is a) nothing new to man and b) nigh on impossible to be rid of--I agree with Og, no matter how much "conditioning" you do, man will revert to type.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Kid,
Just for a second get beyond the latest fad government (meant economic system here) capitalism. All these bad things have happened before. It is not a symptom of the government it is a symptom of man.
No matter how much you try to lay it at the feet of the repressionistic economic system you envision captialism to be, it is there because of the motives that drive man not because of the system. Every form of government enacted has had the same common theme, repression of people in one form or another.
Capitalism doen't repress people, people do.
Always has always will. |
Well you must think that feudalism, primative society, capitalism, and communism are all about the same.
Last edited by Kidicious on 24-06-2003 at 03:48
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Peacefull people are now at a disadvantage. Just change system to a system where peacefull people are not at a disadvantage. |
Maybe we can force people to be peaceful!
Seriously, how can you eliminate violence? It's a natural condition, something that is "invented" anew every generation regardless of the values of the society these children are born into.
Let's suppose that a society was determined to elimnate violence. To this end they endlessly repeat that violence is bad to their children, and intervene at school whenever a violent incident occurs by sending the evildoers to counciling. Would this work? Or would abused and neglected children still have a tendency to become more violent than others, their parents perhaps not around to scold them for hitting their brother, or perhaps serving as violent role models. These kids get to school and smack someone, for which they get a lot of attention, negative from their classmates and teachers perhaps, and positive from the counselors. There is a lot of self-perpetuation material here, and we've seen this cycle for a very long time. Tough guy is identified as violent by his peers and teachers / police etc., and accepts the role because it feels right (he feels himself to be bad). He is sent to counseling, but that slow work to become like everyone else 10 years behind schedule can't effectively compete with the excitement of being the bad boy, especially once the bad girls get ahold of him.
You seem to think that we can simply disincentivize violence away, but that idea has had a long history of incomplete success at best to abject failure at worst. It is completely incapable of dealing with various manias and mob violence, social pathologies and psychiatric conditions. We may be able to manage violence, but we are in no position to eliminate it in the least. Just this week I heard people chanting "No Justice, No Peace!"
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-06-2003 01:54
Og!
|