Ask a Communist

[Scotland]

It's not obscure at all. You're just confused.

You guys keep going on about capitalism being responsbile for innovation and creation when the fact is public money is responsible for innovation and creation. The only thing capitalism has to do with anything is when it swoons in to privatise the profits of these publicly funded inventions.

I'm not going on about 'capitalism' being responsible for anything. I'm simply disputing the fact that things which are invented in places like the US are not 'communist' or 'socialist' inventions just because govt funding was involved.

If govts are so smart, why do they draw their best and brightest from private universities (like MIT which you mentioned above), and why do they flog things off to the private sector to profit from?

 

[Moo]

No (*******), i'm challenging the notion that capitalism is responsible for innovation and creation when it's clearly NOT!!!!!

What would be great is if the group that pay for, and wear the risk of these inventions, were the beneficaries of the profits.... Call that system whatever you like.

*******?

Are all communists as mean as you?

We are equal so don't talk down to me.

 

[Max zero]

No (*******), i'm challenging the notion that capitalism is responsible for innovation and creation when it's clearly NOT!!!!!

What would be great is if the group that pay for, and wear the risk of these inventions, were the beneficaries of the profits.... Call that system whatever you like.

And you would be clearly wrong. Public funding for research has only really become popular in recent times. Historically research been primarily privately funded. Either through patronage, the Church or wealthy families.

 

[Contra Mundum]

And you would be clearly wrong. Public funding for research has only really become popular in recent times. Historically research been primarily privately funded. Either through patronage, the Church or wealthy families.

Don't stop..believin'/ Got a book I can recommend for you: http://www.anthempress.com/the-entrepreneurial-state

Here's the precis - given that you probably will not read something that does not back in your uncompromising world view:

Debunking the myth of a laggard State at odds with a dynamic private sector, Mazzucato reveals in case study after case study that in fact the opposite situation is true, with the private sector only finding the courage to invest after the entrepreneurial State has made the high-risk investments. Case studies include examples of the State’s role in the ‘green revolution’, in biotech and pharmaceuticals, as well as several detailed examples from Silicon Valley. In an intensely researched chapter, she reveals that every technology that makes the iPhone so ‘smart’ was government funded: the Internet, GPS, its touch-screen display and the voice-activated Siri. Mazzucato also controversially argues that in the history of modern capitalism the State has not only fixed market failures, but has also shaped and created markets, paving the way for new technologies and sectors that the private sector only ventures into once the initial risk has been assumed. And yet by not admitting the State’s role we are socializing only the risks, while privatizing the rewards in fewer hands. This, she argues, hurts both future innovation and equity in modern-day capitalism

 

[haden1999]

Don't stop..believin'/ Got a book I can recommend for you: http://www.anthempress.com/the-entrepreneurial-state

Here's the precis - given that you probably will not read something that does not back in your uncompromising world view:

Debunking the myth of a laggard State at odds with a dynamic private sector, Mazzucato reveals in case study after case study that in fact the opposite situation is true, with the private sector only finding the courage to invest after the entrepreneurial State has made the high-risk investments. Case studies include examples of the State’s role in the ‘green revolution’, in biotech and pharmaceuticals, as well as several detailed examples from Silicon Valley. In an intensely researched chapter, she reveals that every technology that makes the iPhone so ‘smart’ was government funded: the Internet, GPS, its touch-screen display and the voice-activated Siri. Mazzucato also controversially argues that in the history of modern capitalism the State has not only fixed market failures, but has also shaped and created markets, paving the way for new technologies and sectors that the private sector only ventures into once the initial risk has been assumed. And yet by not admitting the State’s role we are socializing only the risks, while privatizing the rewards in fewer hands. This, she argues, hurts both future innovation and equity in modern-day capitalism

Quoted for truth

but, lol that will be too much for the aspirationals to get their head around.

will look out for the book though - looks great

 

[Max zero]

Don't stop..believin'/ Got a book I can recommend for you: http://www.anthempress.com/the-entrepreneurial-state

Here's the precis - given that you probably will not read something that does not back in your uncompromising world view:

Debunking the myth of a laggard State at odds with a dynamic private sector, Mazzucato reveals in case study after case study that in fact the opposite situation is true, with the private sector only finding the courage to invest after the entrepreneurial State has made the high-risk investments. Case studies include examples of the State’s role in the ‘green revolution’, in biotech and pharmaceuticals, as well as several detailed examples from Silicon Valley. In an intensely researched chapter, she reveals that every technology that makes the iPhone so ‘smart’ was government funded: the Internet, GPS, its touch-screen display and the voice-activated Siri. Mazzucato also controversially argues that in the history of modern capitalism the State has not only fixed market failures, but has also shaped and created markets, paving the way for new technologies and sectors that the private sector only ventures into once the initial risk has been assumed. And yet by not admitting the State’s role we are socializing only the risks, while privatizing the rewards in fewer hands. This, she argues, hurts both future innovation and equity in modern-day capitalism

Maybe it is you who can't read?

Public funding for research has only really become popular in recent times.

Thanks for proving my point.

I doubt your little fanboi will notice though. He takes the Coup's route where he avoids questions he can't answer.

 

[Moo]

Quoted for truth

but, lol that will be too much for the aspirationals to get their head around.

will look out for the book though - looks great

I'm still trying to get my head around you claiming public money generated largely from private enterprise is a supporting plank for Socialist rule?

 

[Max zero]

I'm still trying to get my head around you claiming public money generated largely from private enterprise is a supporting plank for Socialist rule?

The same way Coup does not like unearned wealth but supports mass wealth redistribution. Or how he does not support large government but wants a large public sector.

When you are making an argument from emotion/idealist/naivety logic does not matter.

You are a ******* anyway.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Maybe it is you who can't read?



Thanks for proving my point.

I doubt your little fanboi will notice though. He takes the Coup's route where he avoids questions he can't answer.

Don't be touchy brother - just making the point that the divide between public and private was hard to discern in matters of research. If you argument is the Medici's were patrons of Leonardo Da Vinci - in so far as they ran the State - bit hard to make out that the money they spent was private

also what about Royal Patronage - were they not the very embodiment of the State - how was the money they spent "private"

and if your going for a lazy argument against Mazzacuto - she is not a communist or even a socialist.

 

[Max zero]

Don't be touchy brother - just making the point that the divide between public and private was hard to discern in matters of research. If you argument is the Medici's were patrons of Leonardo Da Vinci - in so far as they ran the State - bit hard to make out that the money they spent was private

and if your going for a lazy argument against Mazzacuto - she is not a communist or even a socialist.

Don't be touchy? I wrote 4 lines, you read one and missed 3 and ended up with a complete strawman. If you are coming at me with a smarmy attitude you better have all your ducks in a row.

And its a limited point. The divide between public and private funding has only be a real divide in recent times. Historically it has been far more lopsided. Are you willing to concede that? For every Davinci (and even that is a stretch since I did mention patronage and wealthy families) I can name a Tesla, Edison or Galileo.

 

[Moo]

Gees we've only been communists for 16 pages and already the proletariat are at each others throats!

 

[Max zero]

Gees we've only been communists for 16 pages and already the proletariat are at each others throats!

I have already reported the thread to the People's Committee on Unsocial thought™.

The re-education will begin soon.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

If you think communism is so great and capitalism is such a failure what are you doing living here?

Tell me where I said capitalism is a failure? My quibble with capitalism is that it should be alot fairer, but by the nature of the system it can't be fair. By its own aims it is a success, but in the eyes of a broader humanity? We can learn from past mistakes, though. We know for an absolute fact that you can't subject people to a 'Year Zero' kind of overnight social change.

Pol Pot, who was actually a maths teacher before he succumbed to the madness of power, imagined that all the city folk in Phnom Penh and the like should suddenly become field workers to feed the State. Intellectuals, those whose knowledge came through the system before Year Zero were surplus to the needs of the Khmer Rouge's Revolution.

The former maths teacher turned schools emptied by the Rouge into concentration camps like that at Tuol Sleng, where a system of industrial-scale slaughter was devised. Prisoners were trucked from there to the Killing Fields.

That was not socialism. That was madness.

Stalin's purges and forced labour migrations - how was that socialism? At heart a socialist is a humanitarian, and there was little of humanity about these kinds of authoritarian communism.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Gees we've only been communists for 16 pages and already the proletariat are at each others throats!

I am at no-one's throat, Comrade Moo. I am at the fridge, Red Star beer in hand and feeling a tad amused.

 

[Max zero]

Tell me where I said capitalism is a failure? My quibble with capitalism is that it should be alot fairer, but by the nature of the system it can't be fair. By its own aims it is a success, but in the eyes of a broader humanity? We can learn from past mistakes, though. We know for an absolute fact that you can't subject people to a 'Year Zero' kind of overnight social change.

Pol Pot, who was actually a maths teacher before he succumbed to the madness of power, imagined that all the city folk in Phnom Penh and the like should suddenly become field workers to feed the State. Intellectuals, those whose knowledge came through the system before Year Zero were surplus to the needs of the Khmer Rouge's Revolution.

The former maths teacher turned schools emptied by the Rouge into concentration camps like that at Tuol Sleng, where a system of industrial-scale slaughter was devised. Prisoners were trucked from there to the Killing Fields.

That was not socialism. That was madness.

Stalin's purges and forced labour migrations - how was that socialism? At heart a socialist is a humanitarian, and there was little of humanity about these kinds of authoritarian communism.

Any system based on people isn't fair. Because life and people are not fair. Communism is no fairer it simply stops people getting too far ahead so everyone can reveal in their mediocrity together.

My point was:

a) many of these people had good intentions at the start
b) they had popular support for their movements

Its madness now in hindsight but at the time I sure there were thousands of Coups running around proclaiming the arrival of the great people's revolution.

Good intentions and popular support are not enough if your ideas are shitty and/or unrealistic.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

When some are advocating for a system that has lead to governments like the USSR, North Korea and China what exactly is there to discuss?

I actually thought you and me were having a pretty good discussion. Didn't you feel the earth move like I did?

 

[Max zero]

I actually thought you and me were having a pretty good discussion. Didn't you feel the earth move like I did?

Well its true. They are arguing for the same system. They just claim the outcome will be different.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Any system based on people isn't fair. Because life and people are not fair. Communism is no fairer it simply stops people getting too far ahead so everyone can reveal in their mediocrity together.

My point was:

a) many of these people had good intentions at the start
b) they had popular support for their movements

Its madness now in hindsight but at the time I sure there were thousands of Coups running around proclaiming the arrival of the great people's revolution.

Good intentions and popular support are not enough if your ideas are shitty and/or unrealistic.

That's the thing though - it needn't be mediocrity we all share. Uncle Joe was crafty enough to have little difference between his politburo full of swilling apparatchiks and the previous court of the Tsar - the proletarians and peasants were down THERE where they always were while the new bourgeoisie snuffed at the trough filled with their labours. Mediocrity indeed.

You try tell me that was what Marx intended.

 

[Scotland]

Tell me where I said capitalism is a failure? My quibble with capitalism is that it should be a lot fairer, but by the nature of the system it can't be fair.

In any system resources are finite and wealth, like the concept of fairness, is relative.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Well its true. They are arguing for the same system. They just claim the outcome will be different.

If they learn from the horrors of the past things will be different. If not, they will be condemned to repeat those crimes.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

In any system resources are finite and wealth, like the concept of fairness, is relative.

Yeah, I can agree with that.

 

[Max zero]

If they learn from the horrors of the past things will be different. If not, they will be condemned to repeat those crimes.

And have they? Has anyone?

What if the lesson is true communism is impossible because people and life are not equal?

 

[Scotland]

Yeah, I can agree with that.

Kind of makes a mockery of this thread, doesn't it?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

And have they? Has anyone?

What if the lesson is true communism is impossible because people and life are not equal?

But all we have to go on is life under THIS system? Have you ever thought that a lot of the so-called 'human instinct' for greed is merely learned, adapted and ingrained behaviour brought about by the system we live under?

Make a buck. Get ahead. Make a buck. Get ahead. Make a buck. Get ahead.

It's like the clacking of railway wheels on a long-arsed journey. We don't even notice it anymore.

 

[Max zero]

That's the thing though - it needn't be mediocrity we all share. Uncle Joe was crafty enough to have little difference between his politburo full of swilling apparatchiks and the previous court of the Tsar - the proletarians and peasants were down THERE where they always were while the new bourgeoisie snuffed at the trough filled with their labours. Mediocrity indeed.

You try tell me that was what Marx intended.

I don't care what Marx intended I care what about what actually happened.

Actually mediocrity is the only thing we can share. The poor are rich compared to non western countries but actually poor when compared to the rich in western countries. We can't all be at the top otherwise it is no longer top but the average.

The top and bottom are defined by difference not equality. If no one is different then we are all the same.

If no one is rich then we are all average.