The Truth, Still Inconvenient - Page 35 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-30-2013, 10:00 AM   #511
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2 View Post
Anyway, I don’t buy the ‘human nature’ argument, I believe that conditions determine consciousness, that the nature of the person’s environment will determine their behaviour/approach towards it.
This is the sticking point right here and has been since Marx. Wouldn't your consciousness change as a proletarian once you had dictatorship? We have ample evidence that power corrupts people because of how brains treat desire. Then you've got the education gap. A lot of working class people don't have what it takes to run a society. Do you have to kill all the intellectuals who don't follow? Wouldn't a lot of successful people who like rewards for their work want to leave and take their expertise with them? I would like to know how you would handle those who don't want to be a part of this revolution. Does the said country have to be a jail to keep people in or does the world have to be communist so the there's no escape? I would also wonder if certain personalities who will always be non-conformist would ever change their "consciousness".

I would really like to know more of what conditions would have to change for your version of communism to be successful.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 10:39 AM   #512
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28,013
Local Time: 08:27 AM
I think you’re missing the point here, the Marxist definition of dictatorship differs from the definition of dictatorship that we widely accept ie. the rule of a select few with no democratic process. That is, the Marxist definition of a dictatorship, and so in application to the DotP, it implies the rule of the entire society controls the politics and the economy within a democratic system (ie. the people are in charge of themselves). The distinction between these two definitions of dictatorship is important to make. Do we have to kill the intellectuals who don’t follow? Not at all. As an example, Lenin suggested that it would be plausible to have capitalists involved in the democratic process, but as capitalism is ridden there’d be no need for future capitalist generations given there would eventually be no private property. Essentially these dissenting intellectuals would also be able to say in how they wanted things to be run. I’m not sure on your definition of ‘successful people,’ if by that you mean members of the bourgeoisie, then I could understand them wanting to flee to keep their riches. However, if you’re talking about proletarians with much experience in their respective fields, then they’d really have no incentive to leave because they would have democratic control over their workplace.

If people wanted to leave, then I’m sure they could leave, but that would also depend on the conditions during the time of the establishment of the DotP. I do not think many proletarians would want to leave a society that is suited to their needs unless they have some sort of unbreakable loyalty towards the bourgeoisie (perhaps some upper middle class types). The worker will be in control of their own field of work, teachers will be in charge of education, doctors and nurses will be in charge of hospitals/medical clinics etc.

I’ll say it again, it’s not ‘my’ version of communism, it’s the only version. To say that it was simply ‘my’ version of communism would be like saying my orange is not actually an orange despite it being the orange while proclaiming that your apple is the actual orange simply because you were taught to believe that the apple is an orange (it's past midnight so I can't tell you if this a decent/acceptable analogy or not).

No matter how you feel about the ideology, and I think we've both established how we feel about it, communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society.
__________________

__________________
Vlad n U 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 10:40 AM   #513
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28,013
Local Time: 08:27 AM
I'm writing out my posts in Word hence why my font is not quite there.
__________________
Vlad n U 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 01:58 PM   #514
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 05:57 PM
Hey Vlad, I just want to say that I'm glad you're being more open about your take on communism and are willing to discuss it here. Since FYM is about sharing beliefs and even informing others, it's good to know someone with an entirely different POV, and a controversial one for many, is posting here
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 08:09 PM   #515
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28,013
Local Time: 08:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
Hey Vlad, I just want to say that I'm glad you're being more open about your take on communism and are willing to discuss it here. Since FYM is about sharing beliefs and even informing others, it's good to know someone with an entirely different POV, and a controversial one for many, is posting here
Often I forget it's even about that.
__________________
Vlad n U 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 12:11 AM   #516
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbcrusader View Post
I've got to agree with Purpleoscar's statement on this discussion. This isn't about a conspiracy theory - more a statement of how we engage in political discussion today.

Earlier in this thread, someone asked about the debate over global warming. The response was "the debate is over - accept it as fact." I found this exchange odd in that it was the exact same response I received over 10 years ago on this board. When the debate actually occurred is never identified.

Mocking and jingoism are not scientific responses to legitimate questions or evidence that runs contrary to the theory. Over the last decade, any scientific data that does not fit in with the theory is disregarded as coming from "uneducated" scientists or funded by "big oil". Correlative evidence is treated as direct evidence. Natural variability is largely ignored.

Even the recent New York Times article goes largely unmentioned. Is this due to scientific reasons or political reasons?

The best way to establish scientific theory is to challenge the data, challenge the methodology, challenge the studies - and come to the same conclusion. Politicians would rather use the tactics of the used car salesman - buy it now before it is too late. The angry language layered on top adds a "convert or be exiled" element to the discussion.
That being said, would you agree that it doesn't really matter if global warming is real in the context that we (all humans) should be better stewards of the earth? There is proof that many post-Industrial Age activities still harm the environment: poisons water, causes cancer, urban blight (think of all the ugly-ass wires that run between homes in the East Coast and rust belt ruins) - shouldn't we do what we can to stop this? Shouldn't earth be restored to the "Garden" it is called to be?

But I guess it doesn't really matter. We are only a few years away from solar and battery technology from being so cheap and ubiquitous that this whole discussion will change. The new discussion will be: what shall we do with all this abundant, cheap energy?. I for one hope we use at least some of it to clean up the damage we've caused the last several hundred years.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 12:15 AM   #517
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2 View Post
Often I forget it's even about that.
As a Christian - I am very interested in an economic system that has many similarities to Communism (in application, not necessarily in spirit).

The Book of Acts describes a Christian culture that has many of the same qualities of Communism.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 06:11 PM   #518
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 488
Local Time: 09:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
But I guess it doesn't really matter. We are only a few years away from solar and battery technology from being so cheap and ubiquitous that this whole discussion will change.
Relatively cheap, perhaps. Ubiquitous? Not yet. The scale of the energy system is absolutely massive, and it will take decades upon decades to displace conventional energy sources.
__________________
Badyouken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 06:15 PM   #519
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
Relatively cheap, perhaps. Ubiquitous? Not yet. The scale of the energy system is absolutely massive, and it will take decades upon decades to displace conventional energy sources.

Quote:
So how far away is solar from meeting 100% of the world's energy needs? Eight doublings, says Kurzweil, which will take just 16 years.
Source: Solar Will Power the World in 16 Years
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 06:43 PM   #520
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2 View Post
No matter how you feel about the ideology, and I think we've both established how we feel about it, communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society.
Yes as a goal but I don't remember being taught that a Marxist revolution would be democratic therefore bloodless. Also there would be multiple viewpoints in this democratic dictatorship so I don't think conflict could be avoided.

In order to have doctors or teachers running their own organizations some people would naturally be administrators (since there's not enough time to do both & no way to split all responsibilities to equal work since people have different abilities). I don't care what "consciousness" they have but they won't take equal pay for more responsibility. We already have a democracy and segregation of duties in companies so the more things change the more they stay the same. You eliminate money and capital but yet you can't. If there's no money then there's barter which is less efficient than money. Capital is simply a way of organizing long term assets and moving possible current expenditures to future expenditures (eg. Retirement/Inheritance). You have a classless society but you have to make me believe that (supposedly free) people will take only according to their needs and not according to their abilities. This goes back to the desire argument. Fidel took more than his needs.

Your version (yes yours) is more like a Noam Chomsky version of Communism where "democracy" is a massive union with predominant equality (how?) and little government if at all. I could still see hierarchies forming simply because of human intelligence differences and personalities. You're familiar with Myers Briggs so I wonder what an ESTJ would do in that environment.

Thanks for the response anyways!
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 08:31 PM   #521
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28,013
Local Time: 08:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Yes as a goal but I don't remember being taught that a Marxist revolution would be democratic therefore bloodless.
It would be near impossible for a revolution to be completely bloodless since that would imply that the ruling class would ‘hand it over’ to the proletarians, which is fairly obvious that they won’t and even greatly outnumbered they wouldn’t go down without utilising the power at their disposal.

For what it’s worth the Russian Revolution itself was relatively peaceful, but it’s the civil war that followed which was obviously bloody.

All in all I feel a bit iffy on continuing this discussion in this particular thread since we've strayed from anything regarding the actual environment.
__________________
Vlad n U 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2013, 09:23 AM   #522
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 488
Local Time: 09:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Solar is indeed growing at an exponential rate. As much as I'd love to see it continue on this trend, I suspect that this growth is, in large part, due to the fact that there is room to grow at the margins. The game is different once you move on to baseload generation. On the technological front, a modern grid infrastructure and significant efficient storage capacity is required - we have neither of those. On the economic front, solar will have to displace assets that are amortized over 30 years, many of which are being planned as we speak in the absence of valid alternatives. This financial inertia is a tremendous hurdle to overcome for alternative generation, especially in regulated electricity markets.

I think a better assessment would be that in 16 years solar may have the potential to power the world.
__________________
Badyouken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2013, 10:22 AM   #523
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post

I think a better assessment would be that in 16 years solar may have the potential to power the world.
Based on what you mentioned - that makes sense. Hopefully we will continue to see more off-grid applications of solar energy until they can build it into the infrastructure.

Did you read this article about solar powered roads?

Solar Powered Roads



Quote:
If the panels replaced all paved surfaces in the United States, from roads to sidewalks to playgrounds, the developers have estimated that they could produce more than three times the amount of electricity currently used in the whole country—and almost enough to supply the entire world
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2013, 12:11 PM   #524
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 488
Local Time: 09:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Based on what you mentioned - that makes sense. Hopefully we will continue to see more off-grid applications of solar energy until they can build it into the infrastructure.

Did you read this article about solar powered roads?

Solar Powered Roads
Yes, and I will be paying attention to the pilot project (the parking lot).
__________________
Badyouken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2013, 01:30 PM   #525
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
That being said, would you agree that it doesn't really matter if global warming is real in the context that we (all humans) should be better stewards of the earth? There is proof that many post-Industrial Age activities still harm the environment: poisons water, causes cancer, urban blight (think of all the ugly-ass wires that run between homes in the East Coast and rust belt ruins) - shouldn't we do what we can to stop this? Shouldn't earth be restored to the "Garden" it is called to be?
I’m glad you asked me this question. In our current polarized state, if you are not with team global warming, you must hate the earth.

I take a similar position based on faith that we are care takers of the earth. I also take the economic approach that each person (corporate and individual) should internalize externalities.

There are plenty of environmental controls that have a direct and successful effect. Too bad we haven’t applied such a reasonable approach when it comes to global warming.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com