Another controversial discussion! (Capitalism vs Communism) - Page 6 - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
Off Topic Totally off-topic chat in here.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #51 of 144 (permalink) Old 03-25-09, 03:28 PM
Senior Member
 
Revelations's Avatar
Revelations's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,124
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
Now, you may 'blame' the revolutionaries, in that you say that it is their actions that make the revolution happen; but I would say that actions of the tyrants make the revolution necessary - and so I'd blame them, as in, assign moral culpability.
I disgaree. If I believed that, I'd blame the bullies for causing the kid to go on a shooting spree for however many kids he happen to gun down (the same way you mentioned prior some blame America for the terrorist attacks). It's all about personal responsibility with me; which I will happily extend to any argument where blame is placed. In this case, those who started the revolution are the blame; regardless of whether or not anyone felt it was neccessary at the time.

In this context though, blame isn't neccessairly a "bad" thing per say, it's more a label of who started what. They are 'responsible' for the revolution, if that word sits better with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
But then of course, I don't believe in property. I believe it is right to steal from someone hoarding food if you are starving. Not, "hmm, well, I can see the point, OK we'll let it go", but right. Because, to me, people are always more important than things.
Then you do support Anarchistic concepts? It isn't even a Communist principle to grant theft rights to others. I can see your intention, but disagree with how you word it. I'll forgo the rest of the speach for the time being. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
And governments and law codes and power structures are just things. Once they get in the way of people living their lives, they deserve to be swept away. And if the powerful few try to hang on to them, then unfortunately revolution becomes innevitable.
All of the above are in place so we can live our lives in harmony. A neccessary evil due to the inherent issues with human nature. Or do we simply sweep away those that get in our way to live our lives? (I've got a long list!) While this supports neither Capitalism nor Communism, it does support others, such as Tyranny, Monarchy and Annarchy. (Huh, you know I neve noticed the similarities and differences with the uses of 'isms' and 'ys'... cute"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
Don't get me wrong - I'd love the transition to communism to be peaceful, as the whole world realises the sense of it and the propertied few decide that on the whole they're better of in a world where they're materially a bit less well off, but spiritually far richer. But I really can't see it happening like that I'm afraid.
I fail to see how Communism makes you spiritually richer. Plus many would be materially more well off in a Communist society. But ya, it will fail for the same reasons all the other fails. Damn humans, we should wipe them out!

Pondering...
Revelations is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #52 of 144 (permalink) Old 03-25-09, 06:01 PM
Senior Member
 
Red Orc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,615
Reputation: 1
Default

Most people will be materially better of under communism, the point is about the few who won't be, who are the rich now. I still think that spiritually they'll be better off, as they won't have to spend so much time and effort worrying that the rest of us are going to rise up and guillotine them.

If you believe that law codes and power structures are there so 'we' can live in harmony because it's 'human nature' to be nasty, then you have more faith in our leaders and less faith in the rest of us than I do. Me, I think people are all right, on the whole, and politicians, they're human sewage, on the whole. People don't tend to get to be politicians through being nice or even efficient in my analysis, they get to be politicians by being lying cheating murderous scum. And you know the saying "in any soup, the scum always floats to the top".

I don't see the distinction you're drawing between communism and anarchism here. Neither Marxist communism nor anarchist communism recognise property as a principle. "The right to life is higher than the right to property" in a famous phrase. And another, coined by Proudhon (the first self-proclaimed anarchist) is "Property is Theft".

So you think American workers are to blame for September 11th? I don't. The people that flew the planes into the buildings deliberately murdered what I take to be innocent people.

Likewise if the working class of the world says 'enough is enough' and the governments of the world call the armies out on them, it will be the fault of the governemtns and the soldiers who pull the trigger when people die.

If you think about the protests in Tiananmen Square that were crushed by the Chinese People's Army on June 4th 1989, who's fault were the deaths? According to your logic, it's the fault of the protestors. They caused the situation, the governemt and army were merely reacting to it.

Me, I blame the government and the army. I applaud the regiment that refused to fire on the protestors, and who had to be sent out of the capital before being replaced. But then again, I can't think of any government on earth I'd support in crushing its own (or any other) people.

"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 #53 of 144 (permalink) Old 03-25-09, 07:06 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
Most people will be materially better of under communism.
now i'm getting confused, we dont own property nor food nor belongings ect. under the communist way of life but we'll (well most of us) be better off materialistically than we are now?

Quisnam praesumo, successio
lawrence96 is offline  
post #54 of 144 (permalink) Old 03-25-09, 07:30 PM
Senior Member
 
Revelations's Avatar
Revelations's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,124
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
Most people will be materially better of under communism, the point is about the few who won't be, who are the rich now. I still think that spiritually they'll be better off, as they won't have to spend so much time and effort worrying that the rest of us are going to rise up and guillotine them.
I agree with the first part, I'm just not drawing a connection on the second. I still don't see how spiritually you'll be better off simply because you have less material. I find it similar to Religious argument; "You're life will be richer if you believe in Jebus!" I'd be more than happy to leave it at that and not get on that tanget when it comes to this particular idea in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
If you believe that law codes and power structures are there so 'we' can live in harmony because it's 'human nature' to be nasty, then you have more faith in our leaders and less faith in the rest of us than I do. Me, I think people are all right, on the whole, and politicians, they're human sewage, on the whole. People don't tend to get to be politicians through being nice or even efficient in my analysis, they get to be politicians by being lying cheating murderous scum. And you know the saying "in any soup, the scum always floats to the top".
Actually I have about as much faith in my leaders as I do the family that lives across the street from me; so I'm screwed. I can just see the good and bad in human nature and I hate to say the bad nearly always wins out. Especially when we start saying there's no law nor government to regulate basic interactions... I shudder to think what we'd become sooner than most would think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
I don't see the distinction you're drawing between communism and anarchism here. Neither Marxist communism nor anarchist communism recognise property as a principle. "The right to life is higher than the right to property" in a famous phrase. And another, coined by Proudhon (the first self-proclaimed anarchist) is "Property is Theft".
That's an issue I see with Communism on a principle level; I cannot defend my own property since I do not own it. What's to stop someone from taking my dogs in a Communist Society? They're my dogs, and I'll be damned if anyone is going to take them from me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
So you think American workers are to blame for September 11th? I don't. The people that flew the planes into the buildings deliberately murdered what I take to be innocent people.
No, I blame the guys that ran the planes into the buildings. The point was to draw a correlation in reasoning; how you blame the government for the actions (even if you feel their neccessary) of the revolutionaries while I place the blame solely on the revolutionaries in question. One can use the same reasoning to explain away actions of an individual by placing responsibility on an external force; a very old lawyer trick; "It's not his fault he raped that girl, he was molested as a kid!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
Likewise if the working class of the world says 'enough is enough' and the governments of the world call the armies out on them, it will be the fault of the governemtns and the soldiers who pull the trigger when people die.
Actually I'll blame them for ordering the executions and I'll blame the soldiers for following the inhumane order. Everyone gets their fair share! (This can lead to Military structures, war crimes and the like, probably a thread in it's own right)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
If you think about the protests in Tiananmen Square that were crushed by the Chinese People's Army on June 4th 1989, who's fault were the deaths? According to your logic, it's the fault of the protestors. They caused the situation, the governemt and army were merely reacting to it.
No, the same way I won't blame the government for "causing" a revolution when they weren't the ones blowing up capital biuldings. I'm confused on how you keep misinterpreting my point; responsibility of an action rests on the one who performed the action. The protestors didn't kill themselves now did they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
Me, I blame the government and the army. I applaud the regiment that refused to fire on the protestors, and who had to be sent out of the capital before being replaced. But then again, I can't think of any government on earth I'd support in crushing its own (or any other) people.
Again, I want to avoid getting into military structures and regulations here. Way to many comments I could make.

Pondering...
Revelations is offline  
post #55 of 144 (permalink) Old 03-25-09, 07:39 PM
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
So you think American workers are to blame for September 11th? I don't. The people that flew the planes into the buildings deliberately murdered what I take to be innocent people.

Likewise if the working class of the world says 'enough is enough' and the governments of the world call the armies out on them, it will be the fault of the governemtns and the soldiers who pull the trigger when people die.
I usually disagree pretty wildly with you Red Orc, but at least in this thought we have common ground. When faced with a morally ambiguous situation, a soldier has two options: do as ordered and then claim they were "just following orders," or refuse to carry out an order that they believe to be immoral. Sadly, most people (not just soldiers, but people) will choose the first option.

It is my humble opinion that anyone who hides behind "just following orders" is morally no better than a terrorist; in America, that's pretty bad. As a soldier in the American armed forces, your responsibility is to protect the people from all threats, foreign and domestic. As much as I'd like to think that the military would side with the people in the unlikely event of a bloody revolution, I have little faith.

Captain Galus is offline  
post #56 of 144 (permalink) Old 03-25-09, 07:48 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 Captain Galus View Post
When faced with a morally ambiguous situation, a soldier has two options: do as ordered and then claim they were "just following orders," or refuse to carry out an order that they believe to be immoral. Sadly, most people (not just soldiers, but people) will choose the first option.
however there are time when a people do not have the luxury of these decisions(sp?) for example back in nazi germany - you didn't follow orders and you were next to face the firing squad, or even WW1 britain for that matter refuse to advance and you were shot as a traitor

Quisnam praesumo, successio
lawrence96 is offline  
post #57 of 144 (permalink) Old 03-25-09, 08:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Red Orc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,615
Reputation: 1
Default

And many did refuse to follow orders, and many were shot. Some who were accused of cowardice were suffering from what we'd now call post-traumatic stress disorder, and was sometimes then called shellshock. But often it was called cowardice or lack of moral fibre.

But sometimes soldiers did and do refuse to follow orders. Look up WWI mutinies on google sometime - there were lots, in the British, French, German and Russian armies and navies. There were lots in the US army in Vietnam, and I have mentioned there were even some in 1989 in China, which I think probably took preposterous courage. More courage than I'd have I think.

@ Revelations... in what sense are dogs "property"? Can you privately utilise them for the production of social wealth (maybe, hollow them out and house people in them, or secretly use them to dig a cellar where you perform bizarre experiments)? You must have missed the bit where I reassured someone that no-one would be coming to take their guitar away.

And... who's talking about blowing up buildings? We're not going to war with the world's armies; as I've repeatedly said, this isn't a coup by armed plotters. As Jim Morrison said; "they've got the guns, but we've got the numbers". As at Tiananmen Square, it'll be the armies sent in by the governemts of the world against the protesting working class that start the shooting, not the working class itself. We'll be on strike and occupying the factories and holding public meetings. We cannot possibly gain anything from starting a shooting war. We will die in droves. We'll have to see if we if we run out of bodies faster than they run out of people prepared to pull the trigger.

@ Lawrence: most people don't own anything now. If they do, it's generally a lot less than an equal share of everything. There is an oft-bandied about figure which is that 80% of the world's wealth is owned by 6% of the world's population. Think about that for a moment. If that was re-distributed among the remaining 94% (the vast majority of the world that is), we would all be significantly better off. The figure may be slightly off. It may be that 79% of the world's wealth is owned by 8% of the world's population. But the order of magnitude is right.

So we will, mostly, be better off under communism.

The idea of spiritual richness is not about 'having less but feeling more' or any 'non-materialist' hippy touchy-feely nonesense, but would come from 1 - having more time to devote to our interests, rather than working all the time or being unemployed and having no money, which would itself come from being able to integrate the unemployed back into prouctive labour; 2 - the freeing from material want by fullfilling our needs, which capitalism is unable to do; 3 - the removal of fear of other people, because solidarity would of necessity replace competition as the basic factor of human interaction.

All of these things would in my estimation vastly increase people's confidence and well-being, their whole outlook to society and their fellow human beings. This is what I mean about the possibility of spiritual enrichment - not based on poverty, but to a large extetnt based on abundance.

"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; 03-25-09 at 09:09 PM.
Red Orc is offline  
post #58 of 144 (permalink) Old 03-25-09, 08:58 PM
Senior Member
cafel's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Culver City, CA
Posts: 363
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawrence96 View Post
however there are time when a people do not have the luxury of these decisions(sp?) for example back in nazi germany - you didn't follow orders and you were next to face the firing squad, or even WW1 britain for that matter refuse to advance and you were shot as a traitor
Of course if everyone, or even a sizeable minority had refused to follow those orders then it throws a wrench into the whole thing. Still even if it's just you who thinks the orders are immoral then you have an obligation to not follow through and not to claim the consequence to yourself as some kind of absolution for your actions, but I think this is starting to vear off topic.
cafel is offline  
post #59 of 144 (permalink) Old 03-25-09, 09:59 PM
Senior Member
 
Revelations's Avatar
Revelations's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,124
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
@ Revelations... in what sense are dogs "property"? Can you privately utilise them for the production of social wealth (maybe, hollow them out and house people in them, or secretly use them to dig a cellar where you perform bizarre experiments)? You must have missed the bit where I reassured someone that no-one would be coming to take their guitar away.
When the law says they are; and the fact I have paperwork and microchips in them saying they belong to me. Sorry, but when I think Communism, I think societal ownership, and if theft is no longer a crime, there's nothing preventing someome from 'taking' my dogs besides my... "abominable defiance". However, I may simply be missinterpreting that facet of Communism, or just taking it too far.

I suddenly get the image of 3 teenagers trying to share an X-Box with 1 controller... yeesh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
And... who's talking about blowing up buildings? We're not going to war with the world's armies; as I've repeatedly said, this isn't a coup by armed plotters. As Jim Morrison said; "they've got the guns, but we've got the numbers". As at Tiananmen Square, it'll be the armies sent in by the governemts of the world against the protesting working class that start the shooting, not the working class itself. We'll be on strike and occupying the factories and holding public meetings. We cannot possibly gain anything from starting a shooting war. We will die in droves. We'll have to see if we if we run out of bodies faster than they run out of people prepared to pull the trigger.
First thing that comes to mind when you mention revolutions is blowing stuff up. Hmm... I could go further, but I'd derail the thread; so I get your position.

Pondering...
Revelations is offline  
post #60 of 144 (permalink) Old 03-25-09, 10:36 PM
Senior Member
 
Red Orc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,615
Reputation: 1
Default

Unfortunately, I think it's a common misconception (linked to the misconception about the USSR being 'communist').

The revolution isn't going (if it ever happens of course) to be a holiday of terrorism. "You can't blow up a social relationship" in the words of a famous pamphlet. It's capitalism that needs to be gotten rid of, not buildings (or people). Blowing things up won't bring about an end to property relations, it'll just mean more more mess to clear up, and probably alienate a lot of people. We want to preserve as much as we can of the stuff that capitalism has produced (the useful stuff, that is, not sure we'd have much use for smart bombs and aircraft carriers). That's kind of the point - we have a system that is technologically capable of providing for everyone, but it only benefits the tiny minority. Destroying stuff doesn't seem like a good way of sharing it out... (unless it's a cake, then you have to cut it up).

"Social control of the means of production" - the mines and machines and factories. Also, social ownership of land (both farmland and housing). But not your dogs, my guitar, or anybody's pants. Either in a trousery way or in an underpantsy way. Definitely not.

Unless your pants are used to exploit others, in which case, they would be socialised to hell!

"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  
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