Another controversial discussion! (Capitalism vs Communism) - Page 2 - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
Off Topic Totally off-topic chat in here.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 144 (permalink) Old 03-24-09, 03:27 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 403
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraithian View Post
The scenario I see infuriates me.

Me: IT professional, essential personnel, meaning I can be called in at any time, 24/7/365.

Asshole Jim: Works at Wal-Mart as a door greeter. He goes home at night, doesn't have nearly the amount of stress, nor the amount of education I do.

Asshole Jim reaps the same benefits to the letter as I do.

Fuck communism.
EXACTLY! Communism doesn't work, but people always seem to think its some sort of utopian ideal! Just like Dirge Eterna said, the equations and math of it can be solid, but if you add humans to the equation (with their fun loving connection to Chaos, and I don't mean the 40K kind but rather the Heath Ledger Joker kind) things go haywire in ways we never thought they could.
xiawujing is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 144 (permalink) Old 03-24-09, 05:28 AM
Mohawk-Wearing Crazyman
 
ACoz's Avatar
ACoz's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bristol, CT
Posts: 564
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
By my reckoning, what was set up in Russia wasn't communism, because communism is the establishment of a worldwide, classless, communal society without money, and that's not what happened.

So it has to be worldwide, thereby abolishing all countries, and it has to abolish money and profit (commodity production in fact), exchange and incidently a 'working class'. All will have to be done away with.
Precise and concise.

*nods of approval*

'At two minutes to eleven, opposite the South African Brigade, at the eastern-most point reached by the British armies, a German machine-gunner, after firing off a belt without pause, was seen to stand up beside his weapon, take off his helmet, bow, and then slowly walk to the rear.' -John Buchan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elchimpster View Post
I can't help but think that every time something is proven, a little bit of the magic of the world dies.
ACoz is offline  
post #13 of 144 (permalink) Old 03-24-09, 05:41 AM
Pally-HO!!!!
 
Captain Galus's Avatar
Captain Galus's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The 909
Posts: 1,417
Reputation: 1
Default

The problem with this type of discussion is that neither side really has any validity.

Communism will always appeal to poor people, and capitalism will always appeal to rich people. Very, very few people living below the poverty line will say "I deserve to make this small amount of money because I'm not a brain surgeon." Usually, it's more like "I deserve to make as much money as a brain surgeon." No you freaking don't, you ignorant piece of crap.

If someone's messing around with my brain, there better be a metric fuckton of cash telling them to make sure they don't screw up.


Last edited by Captain Galus; 03-24-09 at 05:44 AM.
Captain Galus is offline  
post #14 of 144 (permalink) Old 03-24-09, 11:41 AM
Senior Member
 
Red Orc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,615
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Col. Schafer View Post
red orc: Is it really defined as being world wide? I actualy didnt know that. Lets say that for purposes of this discussion we are going to call cuba and the USSR comunist...

...hmmm. Less controvercial than I thaught maby...
Why? They are and were capitalist. They were class societies based on the brutal exploitation of working people; they were imperialist countries who invaded and de-stabilised their nightbours; in the case of the USSR (and China), they were nuclear-armed militaristic dictatorships; and in the case of the USSR they were the head of an armed bloc that prepared for WWIII. In other words, apart from the severity of the brutality they extended to their populations, the same as the rest of the world.

Now, for the purposes of this argument, if you want to call that "communism" then you can do so, but, for the purposes of this argument, I'm calling you a unicorn. You're not, but so what? We're playing a game where we just make up new meanings for words, aren't we?

And the reason it isn't controversial is that you've already defined the frames of reference as "capitalism v capitalism", while pretending that you're talking about communism, which you aren't. Maybe that's how unicorns argue. Maybe that's why unicorn arguments never get on the news (because, in the end, "A or A?" isn't much of a debate).

"Well it's Forty-one Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-nine OK -
Gotta war across the Milky Way - "
Iggius Popiscus and the Stoogii, "41,969"



Last edited by Red Orc; 03-24-09 at 12:44 PM.
Red Orc is offline  
post #15 of 144 (permalink) Old 03-24-09, 12:17 PM
Senior Member
 
Red Orc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,615
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xiawujing View Post
You wanna see Communism with a "stable" government? Well, the current American system is just about as stable as it gets so far in human history. And Obama and Friends currently are trying their hardest to transcend out current capitalistic state and turn us towards communism. So just give it a few years, and see how you like it.
Wow.

What a load of shit. If Obama is a communist, then you, like Col. Shafer, are a unicorn.

I'm a communist. And as a communist, I can tell you that Obama is a capitalist through and through, just a Keynesian rather a monetarist. Capitalism only has two policies; spend, or save. Saving didn't work, capitalism errupted in crisis (again) and our-so-clever rulers decided to change the guy swinging the bat (or some other inane metaphor) and now we have someone trying to punt the ball in the opposite direction. The fact that last time this happened they changed from Keynesianism to monetarism (thereby proving that Keynesianism didn't work) is neither here no there. There are only two things they can do.

Because capitalism is fundamentally a broken system. It can never work, even in theory. So the fact it doesn't work in practice should come as no suprise. Daneel's assertion that it's because "we have the wrong sort of people" is saddening, but not surprising. Also, if it's true, (I don't think it is), but if it is true, it's yet another reason why we should scrap capitalism.

"Het folks! I've got the perfect way of living! Unfortunately, we all have to be 14" tall and have 9 eyes!"
"Oh, yeah, let's try to do that then!"

Doesn't work, does it?

However, even if we were 14" tall and had 9 eyes (or were just nicer to each other, which some claim is "against human nature" but I don't believe that either) capitalsim still wouldn't work, because it can never, as a result of the use of wage labour and the deriving of profit, buy everything it produces; and because profit and need have no necessary connection to each other, capitalism can neither fullfil the world's needs, nor actually realise it's 'natural' profits.

If a company making a product is making a profit, it's paying its workers less than the value to the company of the work they have done. Every company tries to do this, if they don't they go bust. So thevalue of the labour-power of the workers is in part paid back to them, and in part it's kept by th company - some goes on plant, some on raw materials, some to the state for corporation tax and national insurance and such like, and some is pure profit, paid out to the shareholders.

So for every hour a worker works, the first 30 or 40 or 54 minutes or something are actually working for the boss (and the state, which is merely the boss's club with the other bosses); only 30 or 20 or 6 minutes or something is actually working for themself (and their family if they have one).

That 6 minutes' pay (or whatever) is not enough for the worker to buy back the goods that the worker made for the company. Nor is the 6 minutes' pay of all the other workers in the foirm, or all the other firms. Nor is the addition of all the taxes that the governmetn pays out to all the unemployed and the pensioners, and the government workers like teachers and policemen and the army and the judges and the bin-men (if you have local government bin-men, I dunno it may be private where you are) and to run the prisons and hospitals (I dunno, you might have no health service where you are); but whatever the specifics of government spending are, there is never enough money coming in and going out again to buy the goods that are produced.

So we end up with goods, that are produced with the expectation of profit, that are never actually turned into profit. And without money coming in to them, the companies who produced them cannot re-invest in plant or buy raw materials, and have to cut back on their workforce. Their suppliers (the tool manufactureers who just built a new flange-crumpler) and raw material suppliers (the moominate mining companies) have to cut back on their workforces too... all of a sudden the government has to cope with a million more people on welfare so needs to raises taxes which leaves our workers at the moominate flange-crumpling plant with less money and the bosses with less profit and the situation gets worse and worse...

And that is "the crisis of overproduction in capitalism". A crazy situation - the 'economy' ruined because we make too much stuff that no one can sell. Not too little, oh no, the problem isn't that we haven't got enough Wiis and Coca-Cola and DVD players and ipods and battleships and celebrity gossip magazines. No; we have too much, we're too good at making things, and not good enough at buying them.

Now; that's a fucking stupid system that can never work. No matter what people you have in it, it is innevitable that it will end in crisis. That is why we need to abolish it. And, what we need is communism - not the communism of unicorns, which is just a particularly brutal form of capitalism, but real communism, the worldwide abolition of the state and commodity production, and its replacement with a classless communal society - the world human community, in fact.

"Well it's Forty-one Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-nine OK -
Gotta war across the Milky Way - "
Iggius Popiscus and the Stoogii, "41,969"



Last edited by Red Orc; 03-24-09 at 12:22 PM.
Red Orc is offline  
post #16 of 144 (permalink) Old 03-24-09, 12:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Red Orc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,615
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revelations View Post
Two spring to mind right away...

1. Genghis Khan.

2. Qin Shi Huang.

Although their political and governmental structures may be called something more specific to the individuals, both fall under what I would consider the Beneficial Tyranny.

You may not like either one of them, nor what tactics they employed to further to own agendas, but by god did they make major impacts on the world and revolutionize many aspects of modern life.

Other forms would include many Monarchys you might already be familiar with, including but not limited to; much of the British Empire, the Roman Empire, and the Egyptian Empire.

Unity is a grand thing. The only problem with it is that the world has become so individualized that an attack on personal freedoms cannot be tolerated, regardless of the greater good it could do if sacrificed even for a moment. Such is the sick and twisted joke of tolerance.

But I'm ranting now...
OK, at the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, how do you measure 'beneficial'? (I've not come across the term 'beneficial tyranny' before, despite having studied politics for 25 years now, but I am familiar with the term 'enlightened dictatorship'.)

Now; were Maoism and Stalinsim enlightened dictatorships? They did hard things, sure, but they revolutionised their countries. In the 1920s, the USSR was ruined by WWI, the invasions by Britain, US, France, Poland, Japan, Canada, Germany, and whoever else was in on the act, the civil war begun by the Whites and supplied by the western powers... Stalin managed to turn that round so that in 10 years the USSR had vastly increased its standard of living for the majority of the population. Industrial production rose something like four-fold, electrification was continuing apace and there were massive strides in the rationalisation of agriculture.

Now; I'd argue that the 22million dead (or there abouts) severely weigh against any gains in productio, but presumably, that just comes under "You may not like either one of them, nor what tactics they employed to further to own agendas, but by god did they make major impacts on the world and revolutionize many aspects of modern life", does it?

Benevolent dictatorship is the most insidious and vile form of government there is. Because 'benevolent' is never defined by the people being dictated to. It can never work, because there is no platonic ideal person who can disinterestedly juggle the conflicting claims of different social groups while floating above it all in a nirvana-bubble.

No: fuck all tyrants and the horses they road in on, whether they're Stalin, Ghengis Khan or George II. America in 1776 and France in 1789 had revolutions to depose the tyrants that ruled them (Britain in 1640-60 too, but for some reason we invited his son back). What in my estimation we need is the end of all government, 'enlightened' or honestly tyrannical.

"Well it's Forty-one Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-nine OK -
Gotta war across the Milky Way - "
Iggius Popiscus and the Stoogii, "41,969"


Red Orc is offline  
post #17 of 144 (permalink) Old 03-24-09, 12:46 PM
Senior Member
 
Red Orc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,615
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Galus View Post
... "I deserve to make as much money as a brain surgeon." No you freaking don't, you ignorant piece of crap...
Communism is a system without money.

"Well it's Forty-one Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-nine OK -
Gotta war across the Milky Way - "
Iggius Popiscus and the Stoogii, "41,969"


Red Orc is offline  
post #18 of 144 (permalink) Old 03-24-09, 01:07 PM
Senior Member
 
lawrence96's Avatar
lawrence96's Flag is: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bloxham, Orks-fordshire, UK
Posts: 1,113
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
And, what we need is communism - not the communism of unicorns, which is just a particularly brutal form of capitalism, but real communism, the worldwide abolition of the state and commodity production, and its replacement with a classless communal society - the world human community, in fact.
in my opinion the main problem with true communism is that it would possibly lead to the technological stagnation of the human race.

why?

because now in this capitalist society if i invent a machine to cure every illnes known to man (cancer included) i can sell it to whomever i like for whatever price i like (just what would a fair price be for curing all illnesses?) and nobody could tell me otherwise, i own it and the patent to it so anyone trying to muscle in on my business i can and will sue.

With true communism i would invent it and would not get any benefit from it, no money or additional food/materials, the people will get it for 'Free' and so because of that inventors will ask "why should i make this wonder machine? why should i tell people about it?" and so without this technological advancement we will slip back into medieval style technology and because we would face increasing enviromental problems and not have any improved technology to combat it we would as a race die out.

or at least thats what i believe

Quisnam praesumo, successio
lawrence96 is offline  
post #19 of 144 (permalink) Old 03-24-09, 01:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Red Orc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,615
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawrence96 View Post
...i would invent it and would not get any benefit from it, no money or additional food/materials, the people will get it for 'Free' and so because of that inventors will ask "why should i make this wonder machine? why should i tell people about it?" and so without this technological advancement we will slip back into medieval style technology and because we would face increasing enviromental problems and not have any improved technology to combat it we would as a race die out.

or at least thats what i believe
Except, your machine would be produced, so when you got TB or whatever you'd be able to be cured. You'd also live in a society where you realised that without the help of the people working at the power-station you'd never have been able to build your machine, ditto the people that transported the raw materials, discussed the scientific principles, printed the books and articles you consulted, mnade the microscopes you used to study some tiny things, corrected your plans, made your clothes, cooked you food, brought id from wherrever it was grown, harvested and processed it in the first place, supplied those people who did that with water food electricity learning shelter companionship and stimulation...

In short, you're not lunatical genius living on a island, and neither is anyone else. We all contribute to society, and without those contributions it all falls apart. There is no "I made this". "You" might have had the idea of how to put the bits together, but where did the bits come from? And, more to the point, where did "you" come from. Oh yeah, "we" (society) made "you" - hurrah for us, we are very clever, now where's our disease-curing machine, part of society that has been given the time and resources by the rest of us to make it?

"Well it's Forty-one Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-nine OK -
Gotta war across the Milky Way - "
Iggius Popiscus and the Stoogii, "41,969"



Last edited by Red Orc; 03-24-09 at 01:28 PM.
Red Orc is offline  
post #20 of 144 (permalink) Old 03-24-09, 02:24 PM
Senior Member
 
lawrence96's Avatar
lawrence96's Flag is: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bloxham, Orks-fordshire, UK
Posts: 1,113
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
but where did the bits come from?
thats the main part - with no additional benefit people wont make the materials to construct my wonder machine, why would mr steel mill worker expend all the effort of milling(?) the steel when they could cut down trees more easily and would still get food ect.

also i have one question: the way you describe true communsim gives the impression that there is no true ownership of anything- intellectual, property ect. (or thats how i read it, apologies if i'm wrong) so how do you decide who gets the optimum building ground, or planting ground? how do you decide how much growing space people get?

Quisnam praesumo, successio
lawrence96 is offline  
Reply

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > HO Off Topic > Off Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome