The Red Flame of Socialist Courage...
 

Since my politics informs my view on many world issues, I react to much of what is discussed here from the perspective of what I believe in, which is demoractic communism. It seems that in half the threads I post in however, it becomes me defending communism and my communist ideas, rather than talking about th issue which the thread was intended for.

Consequently, I want to say what I believe in, the reasons I believe in it, and let us use this thread to debate communism, its desirability and its possibility and so on.

The first thing I have to say, because we seem to have struggled with this... communism is not Stalin's Russia, it is not Mao, it is not Pol Pot, it is not even Castro or Tito or Allende...

When I talk about communism, I talk about the idea's of Karl Marx and other thinkers who have followed him. I do not mean Lenin's Russia - Leninism is not Marxism or communism, it is Leninism.

If we cannot get past this then any argument about communism becomes rather dull, because someone says "Communism killed 30 million people under Stalin", I say "Russia was not a communist state" someone else says "Communism killed 5 million people under Pol Pot"... and it just goes on forever.

By the Marxist definition, there has never been a communist nation state, and when I talk about communism, and when other communists talk about it, we do not talk about a system of government that is anything like the USSR, the People's republic of China, or any existing state. What people call the communist revolution in Russia was in fact a capitalist revolution - that transfered Russia from a feudalist society into a capitalist one. Russia was state capitalist while America and most of Europe were market capitalist countries.

Market capitalism is preferable to state capitalim, although state capitalism can create far quicker advances in technology and massive industrial achievments, it requires an undemocratic government, which leads in nearly all cases to opression, and in many cases mass murder carried out by the state. While in the market capitalist state, the government may well commit murder against the working people (using police as strike breakers or to assasinate union leaders for example) this is far less common and the state does not have the power to commit mass atrocities on a systematic basis, because it is replacable - there is also a greater freedom of labour. this exposes the working class more vulnarably to the violence of the invisible hands (and although we know that a very small percentage of peopel are starving in modern America or France or England, we must compare the state of Russia with 19th century industrial Europe or America - were there was indeed partial and actual starvation, and awful poverty - which killed many people and shorterned many lives.)

When we talk about the murders carried out by Stalin, we must never shrink from saying this was an evil of the greatest magnitude. We must also never shrink from admitting the huge waste of human life caused by early industrial capitalism in Europe and the New World.

if we can admit, or at least humour as communists, that what WE talk about when we say communism is not the same as any existing state, whether that state has caused itself communism or not, then what DO we mean?

Communism first and foremost is an extension of democracy. It is extended the political democracy which the ideal liberal state offers to the economic world. Put simply, if you own a great deal of money, if you control the means of production, this gives you power, but power without accountability... what communism means to do is for the means of production to be owned by the people. Not by a state body which is not elected or accountable or controlled by the people - but by the mass of the people themselves.

What communism means is that in each workplace, worker democracy exists. Managerial decisions are taken by vote, technical decisions by vote or by a committee of experts, which all members of the enterprise will sit on in turn at different times.

The greatest objection people have to communism is to say "well, uou know its a fantastic dream, but it just wouldnt work... people just are not able to live in that way"

The capitalist today will tell us... the workers are too lazy. if you have worker democracy that will all just vote for 4 hour lunch breaks and never do any of the rotten work...

What communism means, to me, is believing in people enough to say we can make it work. Under a capitalist society, human nature may be a certain way, or may seem to be that way. people may seem sometimes to be lazy, they may only be motivated by self interest (ie - they will only work harder if they are scared of being sacked or motivated by getting more money or promotion by doing it) I see a world where people are motivated by pride. pride in themselves and pride in the enterprise, and pride in the society that they have created, and these people WILL work, and they will be working to protect a government of the people BY the people - (liberal capitalism can only say government of the people for the people at best) - because if we cant do it, if we are so poor a species, so poor a race, that the only things that can motivate us is our own self interest, is more money in our pockets, is the acceptance that yes we are exploited (that some of the value of our labour is profit, is dividend for the shareholder, is taxation for an inefficient government, is going to buy your Chairman a new Mercedes) - but if we work hard we can make a good living and maybe we can become an exploiter, a profit maker... if we cannot find a higher motivation, if we cannot make a better society, then let the exploiters come back, lets sign ourselves our for the Brave New World and our Soma and sex games and whatever else, because if we cannot do there is no hope, there is nothing more to aspire to and no better world other than a world like this when we have more technology or a little less war, or better video games.

But it isnt just worker democracy, it is worker control, it is the ownership of economic power by the people as a whole. There will not be privately owned means of production in the communist world, all means of production simply exist, simply are. The society is organised by a committee, formed of representaves of each area, which is answerable to representatives of each town, which is answerable to representatives of each street or housing unit.

People may own private possessions (such as clothes, technology, jewelry, and so on), they will live in houses allocated to them by the local housing department, houses will be allocated by need. People will be able to move if they wish to, they will be able to move job if they wish to. Enterprises will not sell for profit and loss, they will be judged by the demand of the goods that they produce. If the enterprise produces something which is not demanded, then they will either have reduced funding or be encouraged to supply other goods. People will interview for jobs, and be given jobs according to ability, they will be free to find any job they wish - if they cannot find a job the state will give them one, each enterprise will have a quote of jobs it must make open to state employee's of this nature.

People will not be paid wages, they will have credits given to them according to need - need is assessed both by the individual and by a board that is designed to do this, appeals can always be made to a democratic town hall meeting on any issue like this - if the individual believes he is not allocated suffiicient to his needs. The individual, or family may use credits however they wish - there will be no homelessness and no hunger, people will always be protected from falling below a certain level, even if they misuse their credits, although they may be made to give back certain things if necessary.

There will be a degree of crime, committed by lunatics, these people will be arrested, tried democratically, they will be rehabilitated into society and if they cannot be they will be imprisoned.

All decisions made the the ruling committee of the country can be challenged and over turned by referendum. All major decisions of organistation are made by the people anyway, every week they will vote via television on the major issues - of which they will be fully informed by a totally free and unbias (as in not bias to any faction of state or bias towards the ownership of means of production) media.

Day to day, peoples lives will be similar to today, and yet vastly different... there is no exploitation of the value of labour - all of the work you do benefits the social unit, and all of the rewards you get are allocated by the social unit according to need.

The motivation to work hard is no longer to get more reward, you work hard out of pride, out of creativity, and because human nature of 99% of people is to do well and want to do a good job. If there are people who just want to bum around, they will probably find themselves doing jobs that arent very interesting, the manual work - but we will always make sure there is a chance to improve for everyone, that no one is stuck anywhere.

Obviously, I have left a lot unsaid, but the government and formation of a future society is a big subject! I'm also going to post something about why I believe capitalism will fail, and I will be happy to debate any points related to anything to do with the subject - in this thread

Why will capitalism fail?

For a start, there are many things capitalism cannot do, that we need it to do.

Capitalism cannot protect the environment, in fact capitalism cannot help but pollute the environment in anyway which creates greater profit or greater use of means of production.

The logic of capitalism, we all know, is to make money. If you can save a buck by polluting our country, even if it will cause, for example, global warming that will HUGELY damage the world we live in - they simply CANNOt help it.

If there is an advantage to be had, if the means of production or the cost of production can be made cheaper - then you have to do it, if you dont your competitor will do it and you will go out of business and your staff wil have no jobs. Mr Ford may privately hate global warming, Ford Motors cannot help but pollute this world with as much greenhouse gas as it possibly can to make a profit.

So, in social capitalism, you have the government, and they say "we will fine you if you do this" so there is no longer a profit to be made from polluting - so either you try and do it anyway and dodge the fine, or you dont do it - and it is a 100% economic decision, you do whichever is the best way to make money and make the means of production more efficient... so we say.. is this the best way? Why do we not remove the power of competition, why do we not take away the slavish obedience to the market which these companies have - why do we not have a company that is run BY the people - that makes its decisions democratically, because then we say "well, we can do this and save $5 but it will cause global warming" and of course the people vote "No"

Capitalism, which was so powerful and created huge advances, is now powerless, powerless to protect the environment, powerless to create equality, powerless to manage finite resources, powerless to regulate itself - so we ask, can a state which relies on capitalism be its watchdog, can a state where every government minister sits on the board of big companies make good decisions in the interests of the people?

So far, it is not doing a good enough job i say, in every capitalist country - so we take away the power of enterpruses to make decisions based on the never ending thirst for profit, and we make these decisions democratically as a people.

There are two forces which will destroy capitalism, let us look at them in turn.

The first force is the people itself. people are unhappy, and right now, you could go to an average guy and say "are you a communist" and he would say "no way", but if you asked him "do we need to control these big companies? Do you trust are politicians? Do you want an end to war? Would you like to be paid a fair wage? Would you like a say of what goes on at work?" then the answer changes.

People every day are rejecting the status quo, they are rejecting the corrupt capitalist state, they are rejecting the greed of big business, the helplessness of capitalism to address social issues and the weakness of the state in addressing them. People want change, people want to tear things down, they want to crush the present system, to establish something new, something they can remake from the start, and not make the same mistakes...

People today, right now, want communism, they just do not know the name of it. The revolution is not made by intellectuals or college students, it is made by working people standing up and saying "enough is enough and these are the rights and powers that we demand"

And they will take them.

But capitalism itself is failing. it is failing because the markets are failing. As every resource is plundered, every market flooded, there is nothing to do but to exploit even further, to cut back everything, to constantly make production cheaper and cheaper, for the means of production to be constantly revolutionised...and eventually capitalism competes itself into collapse, capitalism drives all the profit out of the market and creates huge oversupply, then supply crashes and there is too much demand... Capitalism reaches a point where it cannot supply food, medicine, housing, the boom and bust of the market ever wilder, ever more out of control, until finally the market tears itself to pieces.

Either the people pick up the pieces and build a socialist state from them, or they take control before it is too late... one way or the other, capitalism cannot last - because every bust drives it lower and lower and every boom that follows is further and furthr out of control.

Nice cut an paste, what was the name of the book you swiped that from?

I wrote it all myself. if I cut and pasted it it wouldnt have so many typo's ;)

Not too courageous if you have to disarm peaceful people are you? Are the people allowed to take martial arts, or is any act of self defence forbidden?

I cannot see why martial arts would ever be prohibited.

Guns should not be given to peaceful people because peaceful people do not need them. if you never want to shoot anyone, you do not need a gun, and should not have one.

Hunting will probably be banned I would expect, and target shooting can be done with non lethal weaponary, such as "laser" guns and other children's toys.

This thread isnt really supposed to be about guns but I would not anticipate the general population being armed in a communist society, or any good society - simply because there is no need that I can see for anyone to have a gun; they cannot actually protect you from the tyranny of government, because the govt will always be too strong, and the fact of their existence creates in my opinion more violence and means that more violent crime becomes fatal crime.

How does communism promote innovation of technology or creativity? Nothing beats perfect compition when it comes to benifiting the consumer, which is something that communism completly lacks. The US government recognizes the importance of compition and thus has anti-trust laws to prevent one company from getting to much power. It is compition to drives all innovations, if it wern't for compitition we would have never gone to the moon.

There are also examples of capitalism stifling technology, for example technology regarding cars and other machinary powered by alternative fuels.

What we will see is that scientists are free to expand and explore in all directions and not just those directions the profit motive leads them.

It is true that capitalism has given us huge technologicla advances... but to give your example of the Space Race... once the competition had been won, and now that Russia has pulled out altogether, we have seen that space technology has not really progressed a great deal since the 70's in very many area's - once the competive or profit motive dissappears, there is nothing to drive the technology.

In communism what will drive the technology is popular will and intellectuals having much more freedom.

Today, the scientist (in many countries at least) is negatively free to research what she wants (ie no one will stop her from doing it) but we aim to make her positively free to research in all directions - by funding research that isnt necessarily going to make microsoft more money, but which we believe can improve the lot of our society.

You didnt answer his question.

I have another question. What is to stop this? Some workers just dont work. They slack off, they call in sick, they do shoddy work. Can they be fired in your Communist uptopia? What is the incentive to the other workers to work harder? Do they get individual raises? More time off? Shorter waits on the line for cheese?
If I realised that I was not going to get a raise, and I see others slacking off, and not getting fired, why should I work hard?
If they do get fired for slacking, what happens? Do they stop getting paid? Do they loose their house? Do they get another job and slack off?
How is the hard worker rewarded and the slacker discouraged?
Does the manager get more pay than the worker? If not, what is the benifit of being the manager? If so, then that is not sharing, as the worker, by defintion of communism, is the most important part of a company.
Why be a doctor? Why goe through all that schooling, and stress to not be rewarded for your hard work.
Why open a store at all? If you open a shop, it doesnt belong to you. So the government will open Comic Book Stores? Porno Shops? Art Movie THeaters?
Why will I make a movie? How can I profit off it? Why risk such a hit or miss proffesion if I can just make an easlier living slacking off in some office?
Why write a book? I wont be able to keep the rights of the book, it will belong to the state, and I will not recieve the compenstion if it is a hit.
Can I move if I dont like my home? What is to prevent anyone from living in the best homes in say, Beverly Hills, or the slums in East LA? What is the criteria for those places? Can I choose to live in a nice mountain estate, or will the government decide that i have to live in a flat in Brooklyn?
What if I dont like my job? Can I switch jobs? What about my doctor? What if he is one of those slackers? Do I have to stay with him? How many grocery stores will the government fund in my area? What if my only store is filled with slackers?
Why should the meat inspector work hard? What is his insentive? Again, can he be fired, and if so, does he share in this communist utopia?


All these things, can and did happen and still happen in Communist states. This is why their econonmies slowed down, and crashed.

As I've said before, I don't object to the ideals of Communism.
However, I don't believe it will work in reflection of the nature of humans.
It is not realistic or practical.

There's always going to be someone who has their own agenda,
and they will try to manipulate or force it on others.
People will always look out for their own needs & desires.
It's rare to find those who give by nature.

Thank you for proving my point completly. You may notice that I did not say capitalism promotes innovation, i said competition. Capitalism does not require competition but not having it is detrimental. This is why capitialism in the US is not allowed unchecked, there are balances, laws, and regulations that prevent exploitation and market power.

Communism on the other hand completly lacks competition which is very detrimental. There is no drive to innovate. If something works why fix it right? If were were truely communism a techology would be invented but never greatly improved upon.

I think that I answered most of these questions already, but...

Yes, you can be fired.

The motivation to work harder is pride in one's work, in the enterprise, and in the society - and the basic human desire to do a good job. There will not be queue's of this nature for food.

If a person cannot find a job on their own, they will after a while be assigned one, which they can leave at any time if they find something themselves, or if they wish to be assigned somewhere else. They do not lose their houses, and there will always be a safety net which prevents anyone falling into poverty.

As today, a good worker is more likely to be promoted.


Everyone is paid what they need. The pay someone receives is not related to the job they do. We do not expect people to be motivated to work by salary, but, as I have said a few times, by pride, and by the fact they wish to fulfil their own creative and industrious nature.

However the question is put the answer is the same. The Doctor is motvated by a desire to help people, and so on... we must try to see beyond capitalism and imagine how things will be after the revolution. From each what they can give, to each what they need.

Art should never require a commerical motivation.

Yes, but there will not be slums or palaces, the homes in Beverly Hills will not be any different to those in East LA, all housing will be on the same standards. People will be allocated housing to suit their needs, but are free to move to different area's or move if their needs change.

You seem to very low opinion of human nature in general, perhaps everyone is not a slacker? perhaps people really do want to work, and they want to work in a system that does not exploit their labour?

You can move job, there will be as many stores nearby as people require, and the meat inspector will work hard because he wants to do a good job.

And finally, as to your last point, as I have said very many times, no communist state has ever existed - the fact that their were food shortages in Russia is not relevant in any way to a discussion about communism.

Well then, the situation is this?

We can imagine a way of organising society that would be better, that would make us all happier and would be a better place to live.

But we cannot achieve it or realise it, because human nature is too poor to make this society, even when we know it is better.

Because people are too selfish, or aggressive, or lazy... we cannot help but live in a world of the ruled and the rulers...

I dont have such a pessemistic view of humankind, if others do, I can only hope for history to prove them wrong.

I do not believe that competition is the only motivation to excel.

Just an artist is not motivated to write by money, but by his art; I say we allow scientists to be motivated by the quest for knowledge, and not by the quest for funding. (whether it be from a capitalist company or the state)

Paid what they need? How is that determined? And if that is the criteria for pay, what will prevent everyon from just taking the eaisiest jobs? Why become an archetect if the ice cream vender will get same pay based on needs? Why go through all that school and hard work when you can just get a job in a candy store? I mean why would one person have higher needs than the rest? Arent all people equal? You said all homes would be the same, so i assume so would all taxes, and cost of goods, so again, how are needs determined? Does my need to collect stamps alter my salary?

So why become a dentist when a newspaper boy will have the same needs as the dentist? Why be a brain surgeon when a bike messenger has the same needs? What is the incentive to go through ten years plus of schooling only to have the same home, same car, same salary as a shoe salesman? Why bother?

Why be a teacher and go through daily aggravation, lots of school, high pressure, when you can have the same living, with no school, no pressure, no aggravation being just another office worker? Dont tell me for the glory of the common man, as that is just not true.

I have a better solution one that will not require a bloody revolution. Instead of a violent war, everyone will just peacefully convert to Christianity. After they see the peaceful brotherhood of Christ, they will all work together to make the world better. Once their eyes are opened, they will not work for profit, but for God's glory. They will help the poor, share their extras, and respect their neighbor.
When the whole world is Christian, their wont be greed, racism, prejudice or hate. Tolerance and acceptance and love will be the norm. Homlessness will be eradicated, as will unfairness. No one will go to bed hungry as people will willingly share.
If you read the works of Jesus, you will see the truth in this. So Christianity is clearly better than Communism, cause there will be no bloodshed to attain it. People can keep their guns, their homes and their whathave you, but guns will grow dusty and rusted with disuse. Everyone will be working for the glory in of God, so no one will be lazy. Bosses will treat their workers fair as they are all God's children. Paradise will at last be here on Earth as there will be no human suffering.
Why accept faith in Communism when clearly you will do better with Christianity?

Very religious society's are rarely peaceful, but we should note that Christianity and communism have a lot in common, from what we know of Jesus Christ He was a communist.

I think a great many of the value's of most religions are not mutually exclusive of communist ideals though - but what communism is, is basically a realisation that you cant just make utopia by clicking younr fingers, or all making a covenant - the economic system of a society to a huge extent determines how that society runs, and we need to therefore create an economic system that will allow freedom and peace and democracy to flourish everywhere.

But if everyone is a Christian, they will williingly share, not do it from threat of force by their government. And that means it is better and from the heart. And the government is really irrelevant as the leaders will also be Christian and live by the laws of love and mercy. As will those in charge of buisness and commerce.

And those religious societies were not Christian, so no wonder they were not peaceful.

1, I cant keep just saying the same thing over and over. We do not expect people to be motivated by greed, they will be motivated to do jobs that they feel they have a calling towards, that they will find rewarding, and that they feel will contribute to society... just as today there will be career guidance, but people will be free to take any job which they are offered, by any enterprise.

2, salary which is paid according to need will be determined by things like family size, commitments, any special circumstance. I cannot write the entire constitution of a society that hasnt yet been created, because we must realise that the working class will make this society democratically at the time - but need will be determined by democratic bodies, and decisions of any nature an be disputed in public meetings and put to the vote.

So If i am a newspaper boy that cant control my sex drive I get more pay than a dentist that is responcible? More kids equals greater pay? Man you are advocating the welfare nightmars state.....

And if everyone gets to be what they are called to be, then there is going to be a world full of cowboys and ballerinas......

Sounds like Strange Famous's line of argumenting replacing Communism with Christan ;) Maybe he will be able to understand why we critisize him now.

Hey that utopia of yours sounds like a nice place to live. Why not make it happen? As you wrote: "people today, right now, want communism" - well then I dont see any real problems. Fortunately I have already worked out a plan (tried it out myself when I was still a student and a bit of an revolutionary as well) :

Starting tomorrow, go and talk to your familiy and friends about your ideas. Try to convince them to put all their income into one common pool. From that pool every contributor will be assigned a certain amount of money according to his/her needs as you have described above. The remaining money should be used for common needs, e.g. a shared car (electric powered, of course) for the community, a room for meetings etc...

In time there will be enough members and financial power to buy a small business that will be run according to the rules of the community. It will do well because everyone works hard ("out of pride" and for the good of the community). The wealth and membership will grow steadily - finally the financial power of your community will lead to political power. At that point you've got yourself a movement.

Well I guess you get the picture by now. I'm sorry to report that I myself didnt get quite so far. My family are all left of the middle politically and some are active social democrats (im from Austria) - still none of them could be persuaded to take part in my plan. I ended up with two friends of mine (students and as broke as I was) - it was fun though and our 'commune' lastet almost a year.
Go and give it a try. Maybe you are more successful.


Anyway - I can think of several points why a 'truely communist' society probably wouldnt work, but in all likelihood we will never find out for sure, because people dont want to get involved in the first place. Im afraid there are much less idealists around than you seem to think. sorry, man.

Harry...that had to be the best point yet as to why it wouldn't work in the real world.
Good example.

Too many people are interested in their own control.
Which is why unless they are forced by need, they like cars, not mass transit.
And also why people buy their own personal computer instead of a client-based one linked to a centralized server.
Or why original CD's are still bought more instead of downloaded.

People want their own
Where they want it
When they want it
They want either own discretion as to how to do spend, live, move, even die.
Each person has their own idea how to work their life better.

Someone got the joke. Thanks. Now I am waiting with baithed breath for him to say that in the past Chrisitans killed so i can spring the " But those were NOT TRUE Christians" excuse back at him...

Thanks for getting the irony.... Strange Famous is advocating a faith based system, one with no data or research to back it up, and then condeming other faith based systems that promised the EXACT same things. And in every case, they failed. And failed hard.

He has no data to prove that people will work for a communist state any more than I could prove they will work for a christian state, yet he is advocating a bloody revolution. Would he and other socialists advocate a bloody revolution for a christian society? I doubt it, but they both promise the same thing, sharing, working for the glory of a greater purpose, equality, love caring etc... and yet any time either system came to power it was a bloody disaster.
So untill the Socialists can back up their wishful thinking with data or at least a reasonable explaination other than " that will be no more in a communist nation" they will remain laughing stocks.

Harry.

Lovely post. No kidding, but you know the automatic responce will be, off course it will fail, because the massess are brainwashed by capitalism and cant see the greater good. So Strange Famous has an automatic failsafe for his arguments built in. He created an ivory tower that he can not be pulled from. He is no different than that guy in teh Scopes Monkey Trial that claime god can do anything and as such couldnt loose his argument.
When off course there is mountains of empirical data to prove SF wrong, he discards it with " they were not true communists," or "the world is brainwashed into accepting capitalism, etc..."
And I bet that SF will not even attempt what you suggest, cause it is work, and he also sits smug in knowing that its doomed to failure because of those "meddling capitalists"

I suggest he go to an island with likeminded people and form a commune totally self sufficiant and cut off from the poisons of capitalism, and see how his Utopia lasts.

I'm sure there are enough fans of Star Trek in this group to notice some simularities between the world Strange famous describes and the Federation.
In fact in that system the Ferengi are the bad guys since the use profit as religion and government.
People work hard at jobs they want to do because they want to do the work and rarely worry about the bills being paid or the lights getting turned off.
Maybe this ideal world will exist when we have the tecnology to sustain it and the enlightenment to want it.

Or those who oppose it are bulldozed into mass graves...

Whats funny about Star Trek is that while there were claims of this magic socialism here and there, it seemed that half the episodes were involved with making money, the value of some material, and the like. I even recall one TNG episode where they are playing poker with some sort of currency on the table.

It seems the rest of the galaxy was capitalistic ;)

Also note how infrequently they bring up the general public or how the system works.

Lets face it if you get your politics (and in some peoples cases here, science) from Star Trek, you got problems.

I've always liked the concept of true communism. But I acknowledge that a shift in the near future would not work.

The key question is whether people must be motivated by material incentive. I do not believe that such motivation is intrinsic to people on birth -- I believe it is culturally learned. But the fact of the matter is almost everyone operates under this form of motivation, and it is a belief system that is incompatible with true communism.

So we must learn a new way of thinking about people and property before we can make the shift from capitalism. I don't see how this could be achieved practically. Materialism is too culturally ingrained to change itself. Change would have to come from external events.

For instance, if one day capitalism were to lead to 10 or 100 people controlling nearly all of the wealth and everyone else out of work or getting pennies per hour for menial labor, I could see people rethinking what capitalism does for them. But the majority of people are satisfied with capitalism (whether or not it is really the best system for them) and so absent some absurd concentration of economic power it's not going to happen.

Since children are naturally thieves, and you spend a great deal of your time telling them to share and that they can't have everything they want, I don't think its a learned response :rolleyes:

Perhaps the reason it is ubiquitous is that it is intrinsic.

I wouldn't say that it is intrinsic, nor that children are naturally thieves at all. Children are simply not born with a concept of property. Therefore they see no harm in taking something that doesn't "belong" to them, because they don't know what belonging means.

We teach them our own property system. It is conceivable that we could teach them a different one.

Strange Famous has mentioned education in his posts before, and I agree that in another universe, in another time and place, different education could create a human society with an entirely different set of values. However, there really is no practical way to change the values we have now. Perhaps if there was a nuclear holocaust and the cavemen rebuilt society in another thousand years, but barring that, I don't see any successful communist (truly communist) revolution on the horizon.

it is true that people who have lived in a capitalist system will find it hard to adapt to an entirely new concept - and right now standing outside of that new system, it is hard to grasp at all - but human nature is flexible, and the way people behave under one property system is not the way they will always behave.

People adapt, and when we have the new system in place of communal property (although there still may be private possessions), people will get used to it a lot faster than we imagine I think. As hiredgun, children are not born with any conception of private property, they will grow to accept a communist world as normal just as easily as some accept a capitalist world - the value of capitalism are not inherent human values, they are just the values that this system of ecnomy fosters and rewards.

And Endymon, I understand what you are trying to say, and I did try to explain to you the problem - that you cannot make a new society based on faith, or will, or even the intentions of the people, the economic system must be changed, the method of production will always deternine the type of society that exists.

Harry, I think your experiment sounds great, and it certainly is tempting, but as you found, it is difficult to make communism that way, inside of capitalism and when you are surrounde by capitalist values and conditions.

I don't think imposing a system against the will of many or most people will successfully lead to their adaptation of the necessary attitudes for the system to work.

People need to want the system before it is put into place, in my opinion.

This is exactly what i said you would say and why I suggested that you pack up, go to an island, and prove to us that your claims are valid.

Thanks for your thoughts, Strange Famous.

It's amazing how restricted many of us are in our thinking, as if capitalism in its current form emerged from the eye of Zeus and has been this way since the beginning of time. Looking back through the history of political thought, it's amazing the number of fascinating ideologies that have emerged which lay claim to a better potential world. The progress of humankind has led us through many different stages, with our current form of capitalism only really emerging in the last few centuries. Why is it so impossible to think outside the box and at least consider alternatives?

It seems like communism is a buzz word so manipulated in the minds of our American friends that it is all but impossible to have a conversation on the topic without it being one of attack and defense.

Communism bases itself on everything capitalism can't be, so why do people like Endymon and Rekna insist on evaluating the idea in the wrong context? Broaden your horizons.

You guys are acting like someone is trying to steal your favourite bike. Relax, the world wont end if you make an attempt to understand a concept before turning on autopilot and shooting at will.


SLM3

I separated these into catagories to make them easier to address.

Jobs
It's not going to take a genius to realize of all of the jobs people want few jobs will be in high demand. I personally would not want to be a doctor if I would get zero reward for it. I would have as much as a janitor. The downside is I would be obligated to care for everyone, and if I got sick and died because of it my family would get nothing for my risk.

But then, I wouldn't be a doctor, I would want to be the Head Coach of the Philadelphia Eagles. I could get that job, couldn't I? If I couldn't, I don't see what job I would want in the communist system, I don't much care for being worker number 372.

Why would I want to work hard when I get the same no matter what? If my chance at being the Eagles HC is gone, then what is stopping me from doing some extremely basic meanial job and slacking off at every possible instance? I would get the same amount of "pay" no matter what, correct? So, I get a job where I work with friends, do zero work, and we get the same amount of "pay" that the person who busts their ass because of "human nature". It would not take long for people to figure this out.

Property
What about a person who enjoys to hunt? Could they possibly get a piece of private land "according to their needs"?

What about a person who has strong roots to an area, plans to have a family, and doesn't want to move?

I could go on and on, but one key point is, in order to start, almost EVERYONE will have to move. So, please explain to me how people would begin to embrace this? This also needs to take into consideration that a good number of houses will be trashed when the family leaves. Why? "I ain't going ot be living here anymore, no need to clean up, no incentive to keep in good condition...PARTY TIME!"

Acceptance
Now, please explain to me again WHY people would accept this. A fact is that many people's job training will become absolutely meaningless. People's houses would be taken from them.

From a pure mathmatical perspective, 50% of people would hate this because they lose in changing to this system. Reading all everything you have said so far, I have gained zero reasons why I would possibly want to switch to communism, and many new reasons why to hate communism. So please, do me a favor and just say what someone like me would gain.

Strange,

I have a few questions regarding for you:

1) Are you advocating a move from capitalism to communism?

Given your knowledge of Marxism, I find it strange that you haven't brought out his belief that we can't move from one phase to another by skipping an important transition--in this case, socialism. I wonder if you disagree with Marx on this point. If so, why?

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.

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.

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.

A different system, a different state of mind.

You have to stop mixing and matching aspects of the two systems because it suits your argument. Why not focus on the BILLIONS who live at or below the poverty line? I bet they'd LOVE a communist system right now. See my point?

If you're going to participate, atleast show Strange Famous the respect his ideas deserve by putting them in context.

I for one am not a believer in communism but I still take the time to objectively look at what it's all about. So many people would be amazed at how differently they'd see the world if only they took off the blinders.


SLM3

I understand communism all too well. And in everyone of its apearences, the land was peppered with mass graves, famine and totolitarianism. I am of the strange belief that when something proves itself to be horrid, it is horrid.
And capitalism is the system that has brought the most to the most. It has been proven to be the best economic system over and over. Or at least that is what the data shows.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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



SLM3

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

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.

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

Who is going to die?

Anyone who disagrees with you.

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.

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

no one will be murdered by the revolution

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.