SLM3

If you're still going to cling relentlessly to your opinion that communism in the form we're discussing here has existed anywhere in the world thus far, then I don't know why you're bothering in this thread.


SLM3

Endymon32

But you are advocating a system based on faith too, as you have no empirical data to base a conclusion on. Since you claim there was never a communist nation. And the government wont matter in the Christian world, as gods law will superceed man's law, and everyone will be treated like a brother. So why advocate communism, when Christianity is clearly better as there will be no force, no oppression, and most of all no bloody war to enforce it?

Endymon32

So you are claiming that there was no communist nation ever? Then I claim there was never a Christian oppression either. Lets embrace a Christian world and live in harmony!!!! No bloody revolution!! Love brother Helping out.

SLM3

I really don't understand what one has to do with the other.

You're not here to learn, Endymon. So please, don't ruin it for the rest of us by trying to hijack this thread too.


SLM3

Strange Famous

Marx talked about higher and lower socialism, he never differentiated between the words socialism and communism, they meant the same thing. It was Lenin who called "lower communism" socielaim - but yes I do think there may have to be a transitional stage, where people are still rewarded based on the value of their labour.

This is simply because, as this thread demonstrates, people who have lived in and been conditioned by capitalism find it impossible to even contemplate the idea of a society where reward is not linked to effort, but to need.

I think we may well have to move gradually to a system where it does become "from each what they can give, to each what they need" - because it will take time for the way people think to change. But what we will have right away is common ownership of the means of production, what we will have is that there will not be millionaires, there will not be poverty, right from the start there will be a huge equalization of property.

And yes, we will take property from the richest people and we will not pay them for it, we will take it. We will take Bill Gates estates, we will liquidate his assets, we will take his cars - and he will live in an apartment in San Fransisco and he will be paid a fair wage for the job he does. His company will be owned by all the workers who are employed there (including "contract" workers) - and he will be included, he will have the same stake and ownership as all other staff - as an expert in his field he may well be voted onto the board of directors.

But of course, Bill Gates may oppose it, he may not want to just be another worker, when he was formerly in the position of exploiting 10,000's of workers... if he resists then he is free to go where he wants, he can go and live in alog cabin and hunt his own food if he wishes to... what he will not be allowed to is hold on to the wealth that he has gained through capitalism.

What will not exist, even in the lower communist, or the socialist state, is huge wealth or poverty.

Also, in a lower communist society, the state will need to be entrusted with a great deal of power. We must be very careful, because we know that the state may attempt to become the new capitalist exploiter if it is not controlled. The state must be constantly forced to be totally democratic, positions rotated, every representative removable.

In the interim, the state, although a democratic socialist state and not a capitalist liberal state, will have to manage the change between the two economic systems, they will be heavily involved in the confiscation of private property (not personal possessions, but private property) and the establishment of worker democracy and political democracy, in managing supply to meet the demand of the populace now that the profit motive does not manage supply.

In time, we know that the state will break down, "wither away" as Engels said, it will simply be broken down into so many small parts that it is simply a lose and unconnected collectivism of organisational work.

Also, as people live and grow in the new economic system, and as people's ideals and aspirations change, we will move more and more to a fairer distirbution of resource, where recources are distributed by need rather than by effort or social position. (and never let us say that capitalism does reward people entirely by effort and the value of the work they do, we know this is not true, we know capitalist is infested with corruption and privaledge)

When these two goals are achieved, fairer distibution and the withering away of the state, then socialism or lower communism moves into higher or true communism.

Quote:

2) Marx specifically argued that capitalism was a necessary engine of growth. I believe this should have been your response to the point raised in regards to the utility of competition. That is, Marx would agree with that assessment and wouldn't argue that competition should be squelched. Rather, he argued that capitalism was more fair than feudalism and that, once we had enough technology and desire, we could shift to the next (more fair) system of government. Only after that period would we be able to dismantle government and move towards a system that allows us to reach our species-being.

I dont disagree, capitalism was a necessary stage of human development, and it was necessary to develop the means of production that stagnated under an inefficient feudalist system. The fact is that now capitalism is outdated and stagnating the means of production - the next surge of human and technological development can only be created by a more free society.

Quote:

Creativity allows people to act according to their nature, not create growth. When everyone's needs are met, growth is no longer necessary. Don't dilute your message by warping it to the demands of a capitalist paradigm--that growth is a necessary component to productive (production can be defined as creativity and innovation rather than development, although one's understanding of these concepts may imply an overlap) society.

Growth can be measured in many ways. We will not aim at the sort of growth that means more supply or cheapening labour - we aim at the sort of growth in communism that improves the lives of ordinary people. That is the difference. Capitalism aims only to ever revolutionise and cheapen the forces of production, communism aims to enrich the experience and lives of human means throough technological growth.

Quote:

3) The critique I have of Marx's argument is that he was too influenced by a Darwinian paradigm. That is, he believed, due to the limited information he had access to, that societies progressed in linear fashion. We now know that societies fluctuate and co-exist with various types of economic structures. For example, we find evidence of "primative" societies smack in the middle of highly industrialied societies. I think his model needs to recognize that economic structures do not progress in a purely linear fashion. That said, it may be possible to shift from a capitalist society to a communist one--I just wanted your opinion as to whether you thought that was possible. I'm not quite certain one way or the other, to be honest.

I would say that that way of thinking was also heavily influanced by Hegel. I think it is only possible to shift to a communist society when the technology and forces of production to enable it are there. I dont think Marx is a prophet or that we should think he laid down a blueprint for exactly how the future will be, just that he was able to see forces of history that have lad and will lead inevitably to certain forms of society.

It is possible for societies to fall behind the progress of others certainly, and with an effort, societies may even be able to regress or go back a stage, to a agricultural feudalist society if there was a really determined effort to do it, but what I do believe is that when you have forced of production that reach a certain level, capitalism not only is no longer a logical system of economy, but an inpractical one that simply cannot cope. This is when the revolution is made.

if their may be further stages of human development beyond communism, we cannot say it is impossible, but I personally cannot see far enough ahead to judge that.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

smooth

We're on the same page, I was using terms that most readers here would associate with Marx's ideas.

However, I want to caution you not to reify the economic structure. I don't agree with the assertion that there are inevitable processes that will lead us to change--your comment speaks to the issue I raised in reference to a Darwinian paradigm.

I don't disagree that change will occur, but humans must actualize it--natural forces will not compel it--and they must do so by consensus. This is a confusion that even Marx may not have resolved himself. Or, his interpretors may not be able to distinguish how he felt about it since he emphasized different points in various stages in his life. It would be strangely curious if he reified change given that he was so adament that we not do the same to commodities!

Given that, there are more current readings of his work that argue he was more dialectical in his assumptions regarding the link between ideology and structure; that is, it wasn't as uni-directional as previously held (and you posted earlier). Ideology does influence structure more than classical interpreters have assumed Marx wrote--and that presumption is hopefully becoming more widespread. Of course, this speaks to the Hegelian influence you cited.

I don't know your education and I don't want to knock you--your posts are very interesting to me. You sometimes mix theoretical assumptions in your explanations, however, and drift from one model to another. It isn't highly problematic to the readers who are familiar with the sources because we can see you struggling with (often) inane and entangling questions, but people who aren't familiar with the concepts pick up on that drift and interpret it as inconsistency.

Keep in mind that what we now recognize as "primative" societies are actually very equitable, so I don't think conceiving them as throwback or digressive societies is very helpful. Furthermore, some of the societies I was referring to never "developed" out of share based economies, it's not that they once did and went "backwards."

I think a more palpable notion (in time) would be aggressive (or progressive) taxation of the wealthy as a means to "seize" their assets rather than a relyance on force. This might clear up how a "revolution" can occur in a non-violent way. This also may allay the very strong critique that Marxism was an ideology directed at the working class to overthrow the ruling class--that he didn't necessarily care for the underclass.

But that would be interesting to speculate as to whether there can be human progression beyond communism since, according to Marx, it allows us to return to our natural order and reach our most creative potential (our species-being or what most people might better understand as enlightenment).

Have you read Weber's work?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Endymon32

If you can argue that there never was a communist nation cause they didnt follow the ideal's founder to the letter, than I can argue that there never was a true Christian cause they didnt follow that idea's founder to the letter.
So Strange Famous is in a trap. He dismisses Christianity as oppressive and bad and dangerous, and says Communisn is good because it never existed in a pure state.
Well I submit that Christianity is good because it never existed in a pure state. Notice how Strange Famous never commented on this other than saying that the two ideals are similar.
You cant say that communism never existed because what happened in the past was a misinterpretation, and still disregard Chrisitianity because that too was a misinterpretation.
So I submit that a true Christian world would be MUCH better than communism and the government wouldnt matter as they would be really ruled by the love of god. True equality would be had, people would work hard and share because that is what its all about.


If you think I am a preachy fool, than you must also call Strange Famous a preachy fool, cause we are both committing the same fallacy.
If you think he is correct then you must also think I am correct because we are both committing the same fallacy.

Strange Famous is taking an idea, applying it, and forgetting that EVERY idea has been corrupted by human nature. He is using the IDEAL and forgetting that we dont live in an ideal world.
He is forgetting that any government or economic way will be twisted by the very people it tries to help. This is not just intrinsic to capitalism, or feudalism, or monarchy. Its intrinsic to humanity. For his ideal to work, you need the ideal human. And not one person on this earth is the ideal human.
No two people can share everything, not becaue of capitalism but becaue of the intrinsic human need of self preservation. Marx and Strange Famous forgot this.
Just as the beautiful idea of Chrisitanity gave way to horror amd oppression, so too did Communism. This is not because of capitalism, but because of humans.
It is because of humans EVERY system of government or economics is flawed.
Capitalism is the best flawed system for giving the most to the most.
Communism will never work untill all people are perfect, and the irony is, once we reach that point, ANY system of government will also be perfect.

SLM3

Thanks for your inisght, Smooth. Are/were you a student of political science or is this just an interest of yours?



SLM3

TheKak

Strange Famous, you definatly need to come back to earth where us flawed humans live, not up in the clouds where people are motivated by pride and have no need to defend themselves since apparently everyone loves everyone else and has no want to harm each other.

__________________
Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic and so am I.

Ustwo

I like him where he is. Theoretical communists are quite benign. Its when they start doing things that millions die.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

madp

Exactly. And folks like you and I are theoretically "live free or die" kind of guys until someone threatens that freedom.

__________________
why are you wearing that stupid man suit?

Lebell

Communism cannot work for one simple reason: Humans are not by nature communist creatures, e.g. ants or bees.

We work best when it is for our own benefit (and our family's/tribes) but not for a "state".

Communism as expressed here must be enforced at gunpoint, hence the need to disarm the populace.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

smooth

I recently finished my Bachelor of Science in Sociology. Now I'm working toward a Ph.D. in Criminology, Law and Society. Sociologists break these macro-theories into branches of thought. This one is placed in the conflict theory branch because we believe that humans form groups and work according to their party's interests. That's where I learned Marx, Weber, and Durkheim (the three founding fathers of sociology, which forms our canon of classical theory base).

There is another main branch of theory called the functionalist perspective (Durkheim), which argues that people work with and depend upon one another. Concepts like inequality actually keep lazy people active, for example--poverty comes from poor talent and lack of initiative.

The conflict theory resonates with my belief system. That main branch, however, is split into critical conflicts (seek to eradicate inequality--Marx) and uncritical conflicts (think it's inevitable--Weber). I'm not yet certain which one I believe in most.

pocon1

Why are the countries that have the highest levels of human quality of life capitalist? Canada, USA, England, Germany, Australia, Japan, etc. The countries that have tried to have communism have tended to fail miserably. Russia, Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea. I think practical applications have shown that communism simply does not work. It sounds nice, but then reality steps in.

Rekna

But those nations wern't truely communist...... they were only closer to communism.

It may be true that a truely communist nation may not be violent and cause the deaths of millions but so far it seems the road to communism does involve lots of violence and death. The chance of curroption is way to high. In addition you can argue till your blue in the face that those nations wern't communist and that in true communism those attrocities won't happen but it won't get you anywhere. To make what I think is a good analagy.... I don't know that absolute 0 is cold, no one knows that it is cold, no one has ever experienced absolute 0. But what we do know is that the closer we get to it the colder it gets so it is a fairly safe assumption to assume absolute 0 is cold. Now look at the same logic to governments where communism is absolute 0. Sure we have never been there but the closer we have gotten the more violent the nations have become.

Strange Famous

I only really covered Webber in my Masters in one course.

The problem I guess I had with him was he was too pessemistic, and in the end he see's us all trapped in this iron cage of bureaucracy, and it isnt exactly certain if he thinks is a bad thing.

Webber and Michels both saw a world which would always be ruled by the cold unfeeling hand of bureaucracy, whether it was capitalist or socialist or anything else - I think both of their theories are almost Luddite - insofar as they see that world as the only one possible under new technology, the only possible escape would be to go back to agricultural feudalism, whereas while people where unfree almost totally in the respect of their formal rights, their masters had very little real power over there every day lives (the difference between absolute power and infrastructural power - whereas now the red Queen cannot yell "Off with his head" and be obeyed, the state has power over far more apsects of our life)

In the end, I find Marx the most convincing political theorist, because I share his hope in the basic goodness of humankind, and I cannot deny what he saw, the basic badness of all existing societies (which was nothing new, something he learned from Hobbes really)

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Endymon32

Its odd that the basic goodness in mankind's best hope for a government ( accourding to you) is paved with blood of the people...

Strange Famous

according to me, there is every possibility of a peaceful revolution. The revolution will only be bloody if the master class try to stand in the way of irreversible forces of history.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Endymon32

So they will get a benevolant rule even if it kills them? Anyone else see the irony?

Strange Famous

Who is going to die?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Endymon32

Anyone who disagrees with you.

Strange Famous

well, if you mean it in the most literal sense, we are ALL going to die I do not claim a socialist society shall enjoy immortality - but the people who disagree with communism will not be killed, they will be convinced by the success of the communist society.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Endymon32

So no one will be murdered when your people try to assert control?

Strange Famous

no one will be murdered by the revolution

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Lebell

Yes,

Politically, the state will have to say that those who resist having their property confiscated or otherwise resist are to be executed for high treason, technically not murdered.

At least that is how it was done in the USSR and is how it's done in North Korea and China currently.

China even charges the family's for the bullet used.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Strange Famous

I dont know how many times I can say, Maoism, Stalism, Pol Pot, N Korea... are not communist contries. In the first post in this topic I tried to say "lets not talk about Russia, lets talk about what people who say they are communists today believe" and yet here we still are...

Stalinism, Maoism, are terrible and unworthy political systems, even worse than American or European "democracy". How many times must I say it?

My only intention was to have a real debate about communusm, is it the case that the red scare is so ingrained in people thats its impossible to actually talk about Marxism and maybe Pannokiek, and not Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and all the rest?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Lebell

But the problem remains: what are you going to do to the people who don't want to give up their property or run counter to the revolution?

You still haven't answered this basic question.

And I have another question: Why aren't they communist countries? Everyone is guaranteed a job, no one owns property, and the state makes all decisions.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Strange Famous

the people whose property is confiscated by the people will be less than 0.2% of the population. If they resist, they will find they have no means to resist - if they use violence against the democratic will of the people they will be locked up.

A communist state has not yet existed because history is only now ready for communism

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Lebell

And I refer back to my first post: People by nature are not communist creatures.

No one likes having the fruit of their labor taken from them and then having someone else decide what they need.

Your system is doomed to fail.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Strange Famous

And I say that human nature should not be defined by capitalism

I believ human nature is aboveall compassionatem that the only basic human quality is a disinclination to see anoither sentient being suffer.... self interest, greed, lust of wealth... these are the characteristics if an exploitative economic system, thet will bot be factors after the revolution.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Rekna

It isn't. Human nature is defined by freedom (or the desire thereof). People want to make their own decisions. They want to decide what is best for themselfs. I think your statement is backwords. It should say "Human nature defines capitalism".


Strange Famus from a pure econimic standpoint how does communism ensure that the market is operating at maximum effiency? Perfect Compitition is the only thing I have ever learned that enforces maximum effiency. Last time I checked communism lacks compitition.

Lebell

So it appears we will have to disagree on the basic motivation factors for human beings.

In closing:

Won't Get Fooled Again

The Who


We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the foe, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they'd all flown in the last war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are out-phased, by-the-bye
And the party on the left
Is now party on the right
And their beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

nanofever

I think the best application of socialistic thought is taking the current system and simply increasing taxes by a significant portion. The government with it's current bureaucracy, little Weber style bureaucracy creep - if that is possible, will takes these taxes and redistribute them equally to people with social programs. Free college, year long maternity leave, longer required vacations, welfare, arts funding, ect are all ways in which the money could be spent. With this system you have all of the economic benefits of capitalism with the social benefits of socialism. This is the wealth re-distribution that "the revolution" seeks but with no social up-heaval or deaths.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."