Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Victorgra]

• ???????? ?????????? ???? by Victorgra
  [Yesterday at 11:29:30 PM]
• ? ??????? 2 by Juliyge
  [Yesterday at 10:16:52 PM]
• ??????????? ????? ???????... by Juliget
  [Yesterday at 08:28:55 AM]
• 2012 Concert Thread by Carmelasew
  [April 25, 2024, 11:19:23 PM]
• ????????? ??????????? seo... by Victorumj
  [April 25, 2024, 09:59:00 PM]
• ???????? ?????????? tk by Victorcqt
  [April 25, 2024, 06:35:49 PM]

Members

• Total Members: 4939
• Latest: BrianCus

Stats

• Total Posts: 129551
• Total Topics: 7148
• Online Today: 156
• Online Ever: 1013
• (January 12, 2023, 01:18:11 AM)

[12AX7]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9A51jN19zw

[Clear_Runway]

now, I'm all for freedom and democracy and whatnot, but the students that stayed to get the crap blown out of them after the government shooed off the reporters must have been fucking stupid. just saying. unless they wanted to go for the "martyr" angle, which didn't work out so well, since as you may have noticed china is still communist

[12AX7]

What's wrong with communism?

 The idea? Or the actual implementation?

[12AX7]

Ah, ok. Then "nothing."



To see what's wrong when it's actually implemented; just watch the video. Ever seen peoplemush? Like, when a tank runs over someone and crushes them to pulp? It's on there. Flattened globs of smushed peoplemeat.

[12AX7]

TWO DAYS???  You left here day before yesterday! Where did you go??

[12AX7]

Ok. Just making sure you aren't lost   ...again. 

[Vespertine]

We've been through this before, countless times.  Communism is an economic system.  Whether China actually has a communist economic system is kind of a side question.  Their POLITICAL system is totalitarian/oligarchical/authoritarian (pick some form of that).  To lump the atrocities of the Chinese government/military under the heading of 'communism' does an extreme disservice to the very definition of the word.

[/schoolteacher mode]

[pbsaurus]

Remember you hiatus of several months?  It was rough on us.

[Vespertine]

Yeah, sorry, BS, that wasn't really directed at you.

[12AX7]

Yes, Ves, but can you name one implementation of Communism in practical application that has turned out right?
  It may be an economic system; but accompanying that economic model has always been some form of totalitarian/oligarchical/authoritarian (pick some form).
 Until I witness an example of communism that actually works out; I'm satisfied to lump it in with "Systems I'd rather NOT experience".

[Vespertine]

LOL!  The Federation, DUH!   

[12AX7]

lol... that reminds me of that cat that stopped by trying to drum up members for his "Federation Of Commonwealth...or FEDCOM"

[12AX7]

lol... that reminds me of that cat that stopped by trying to drum up members for his "Federation Of Commonwealth...or NAMBLA"

  ^^^ too much Daily Show

[Vespertine]

On a more serious note, I would put forth the idea that many (if not most) tribal-type 'societies' are probably a good example of communism in action without the atrocities.  Now, I'm just throwing that out there without ever having researched any sort of tribal, agrarian group in any detail.  But, the idea that all of the hunting/gathering spoils going into the community pot and being disseminated from same community pot is the textbook definition of communism.

[12AX7]

That's actually a very good example. Those guys didn't even cross my mind; you're exactly right. Of course; they were still (usually) atrocious with other tribes. Having an outside enemy usually replaces or surpasses violence and atrocities within a group.

[Clear_Runway]

wow, lotta posts.

the only thing I would have to add is the communism is not inherently, but by necessity is, totalitarian/authoritarian etc., because quite simply people are greedy. pure communism would have everyone's money available to everyone else, which would result in greedy people taking as much as possible. Therefore a strong national government is necessary to ration it. and everyone knows that when people share, there's never quite enough to go around.

capitalism is the opposite, it harnesses greed. greed is good.

[Vespertine]

Jesus Christ, have you ever ACTUALLY read ANYTHING of any real substance?

[Scheherazade]

On a more serious note, I would put forth the idea that many (if not most) tribal-type 'societies' are probably a good example of communism in action without the atrocities.  Now, I'm just throwing that out there without ever having researched any sort of tribal, agrarian group in any detail.  But, the idea that all of the hunting/gathering spoils going into the community pot and being disseminated from same community pot is the textbook definition of communism.

I've also read, though don't quote me on this, about a few communes here in the states that were quite successful for a while. It has always seemed to me that communism is the most successful on a small scale, which may or may not be due to the fact that when communism goes bad it usually has something to do with the class divide - which doesn't happen so much in a tribe of thirty people.

[ivan]

Uh... C_R, there is no money under communism.

There is also no government.

And there is a super-abundance of goods, meeting everyone's needs and wants in plenty.

Why steal or hoard something that everyone has more than enough of?

The idea is that greed is born of want, so if all basic needs are filled, the greed instinct eventually dies away.

Marx and Engels supposed that a communist society is the natural culmination of societal evolution. They noted that, like organisms, societies evolve into more complex structures, and each evolutionary leap is a partial improvement over the previous state.

The stresses inherent in capitalism -- basically, class inequality facilitated by the private ownership of the means of production -- will themselves destroy capitalism, giving rise to the next society on the evolutionary ladder, in which the means of production are owned publicly: communism.

Here was the plan:

Clearly, the stresses inherent in capitalism had come to a head in the second half of the 1800s. It was time for the working class to put an end to their misery (and their conditions certainly were miserable and inhuman). So the workers would rise up and kick the fat cats out of their mansions and hang the dirty politicians they kept in power with their filthy lucre, and take possession of the factories and refineries and transportation and institutions, and run them in an equitable way. That is the dictatorship of the proletariat -- a direct representational democracy in which money and property had no influence -- Socialism, the gateway to Communism.

The role of the Communist Party was to lead the people to revolution, guide the people in governing the Socialist state, and educate the new generation of Socialists.

Now get this: at some point, when the people have been sufficiently educated and enlightened, the need for the Communist Party goes away, as does the need for any government. Marx called it the "withering away" of government. That is one important aspect of the transition from Socialism to Communism.

So your dire prediction of scruffy commies squabbling over a few quarters or a crust of bread is uncalled for. Not only will everyone be too busy being happy and fulfilled to squabble, it won't even be in their natures to do so. Also, greedy throwbacks such as you or me would stand out like sore thumbs in a greedless society, and public opprobrium -- shame -- would keep us in check, and presumably preclude any ability to mate, thus accelerating the dying out of greed and other atavistic instincts.

Anyway, that was the plan.

[Vespertine]

Uh... C_R, there is no money under communism.

There is also no government.

And there is a super-abundance of goods, meeting everyone's needs and wants in plenty.

Why steal or hoard something that everyone has more than enough of?

The idea is that greed is born of want, so if all basic needs are filled, the greed instinct eventually dies away.

Marx and Engels supposed that a communist society is the natural culmination of societal evolution. They noted that, like organisms, societies evolve into more complex structures, and each evolutionary leap is a partial improvement over the previous state.

The stresses inherent in capitalism -- basically, class inequality facilitated by the private ownership of the means of production -- will themselves destroy capitalism, giving rise to the next society on the evolutionary ladder, in which the means of production are owned publicly: communism.

Here was the plan:

Clearly, the stresses inherent in capitalism had come to a head in the second half of the 1800s. It was time for the working class to put an end to their misery (and their conditions certainly were miserable and inhuman). So the workers would rise up and kick the fat cats out of their mansions and hang the dirty politicians they kept in power with their filthy lucre, and take possession of the factories and refineries and transportation and institutions, and run them in an equitable way. That is the dictatorship of the proletariat -- a direct representational democracy in which money and property had no influence -- Socialism, the gateway to Communism.

The role of the Communist Party was to lead the people to revolution, guide the people in governing the Socialist state, and educate the new generation of Socialists.

Now get this: at some point, when the people have been sufficiently educated and enlightened, the need for the Communist Party goes away, as does the need for any government. Marx called it the "withering away" of government. That is one important aspect of the transition from Socialism to Communism.

So your dire prediction of scruffy commies squabbling over a few quarters or a crust of bread is uncalled for. Not only will everyone be too busy being happy and fulfilled to squabble, it won't even be in their natures to do so. Also, greedy throwbacks such as you or me would stand out like sore thumbs in a greedless society, and public opprobrium -- shame -- would keep us in check, and presumably preclude any ability to mate, thus accelerating the dying out of greed and other atavistic instincts.

Anyway, that was the plan.

Or, as V originally said, Jesus Christ (C_R), have you ever ACTUALLY read ANYTHING of any real substance?!?!?

 

[Clear_Runway]

And there is a super-abundance of goods, meeting everyone's needs and wants in plenty.

...this is where the whole thing breaks down.

of course communism would be fine if everything were so easy, but they aren't. not saying they won't ever be, but they aren't, not in the 1800s and certainly not now.

also, i was speaking of money in a theoretical sense. of course the whole thing breaks down to resources.

so yes, I suppose communism in the purest sense has never actually been tried. but theres a good reason for that. its impossible

[ivan]

so yes, I suppose communism in the purest sense has never actually been tried. but theres a good reason for that. its impossible

Communism isn't tried. Communism occurs when everything falls into place. You can't force communism. If the conditions are right, and obstacles are removed, then it just happens. By the way, scientific breakthroughs and automation have always been seen as pathways to super-abundance. Keep that in mind while you read the next couple of graphs, if you will indulge me.

You can't have abundance without a minimum material base. That's obvious, and it's right out of Marxist theory. So building the material base is the first step towards an equitable society. To build a material base, you need an industrialized society. If that industrialized society is capitalistic, then you have the perfect conditions for a socialist revolution: workers want equality, capitalists are evil leeches, so they get the boot, and then the workers can go about increasing the material base with greater enthusiasm, because they will be working for themselves. The material base will grow even faster because there isn't some greedy billionaire sitting on top of the money bags hoarding profits. Then, when super-abundance is achieved, before you know it, you have communism. Poverty, hunger, and the resulting crime are gone for good.

So in 1917, Lenin thought -- "Hey, why not? We have inequity and suffering, God knows. We have workers -- not a lot, but some. We're not exactly industrialized, but that'll come. Let's rumble!" And so his Communist Party plunged the country into a whole different pit of misery. Industrialization was forced out of the people like blood from a stone, and the peasants, who were the vast majority of the people, were frog-marched into collectivization. Strictly speaking, Lenin jumped the gun. Russia wasn't ready for Socialism. Instead of being championed by the people, it had to be forced on them, which is not how it was supposed to work. The Communist Party, instead of taking on a guiding and educating role, had to maintain an iron fist just to keep everything together. But hey, their intentions were good.

Meanwhile, over in the US, things are not going so well either. Workers were being horribly exploited, government corruption was rampant, capitalists exercised vicious greediness unchecked. Communist and Socialist organizations were thriving. There was open talk of revolution. I submit that the US came this >< close to full-blown Socialist revolution led by either Socialists or Communists. There was a LOT of sympathy for their vision.

And if there had been such a revolution, it would've turned out very different here than it did in the USSR. The US was industrialized. The material base had a good start. I think socialism, and eventually communism, had a legitimate shot at success here. Like no other society in history, we have the energy, intelligence and enthusiasm to create super-abundance.

But something intervened (and here we get to ivan's Big Theory): Labor Unions.

Labor Unions were the safety valve that kept the US from going full Red, by improving the plight of the working man. When the proletariat ceases to be miserable, the craving for Socialism withers away.

So, if you are a true communist-hating patriot, the next time you bump into a burly AFL/CIO thug, you should kiss his grimy steel-toed boots. His forerunners saved this country's capitalist ass by changing the system from within, killing the need to change it from without.

[Clear_Runway]

well, that was very well-thought-out and actually quite impressive.

of course, there are a couple of things that should be pointed out:

1. people are lazy, and people know other people are lazy. if everyone is working towards the filling of a single metaphorical "pot" then human instinct is to try to do as little possible, since very little of this worker's work actually benefits him directly. if everyone does this, then the economy goes "poof". I suppose it could work if you had robots do all the work (and somehow maintained themselves and created a self-sustaining system and whatnot) and had all the humans just lay around and play computer games and mess around.

2. many of the union leaders were in the socialist party. they wanted a revolution.

3. not all crime is based on money. sometimes crime is done for ambitions sake, or for the hell of it, or simply in the heat of the moment. there would still be, and will always be, crime.

[12AX7]

frog-marched into collectivization.

 See, I always thought it was "goose-stepped".

[ivan]

well, that was very well-thought-out and actually quite impressive.

Why, thank you.

of course, there are a couple of things that should be pointed out:

You pointed out 3 things.

1. people are lazy, and people know other people are lazy. if everyone is working towards the filling of a single metaphorical "pot" then human instinct is to try to do as little possible, since very little of this worker's work actually benefits him directly. if everyone does this, then the economy goes "poof". I suppose it could work if you had robots do all the work (and somehow maintained themselves and created a self-sustaining system and whatnot) and had all the humans just lay around and play computer games and mess around.

Under utopian communism, you do what you want (as long as you don't hurt anyone - sound familiar?). In a super-abundant society, you can lay around and get fat, if that's your bag, or climb a mountain, or write poetry, or join a rock band, or design buildings, or explore space, or be a movie star, or invent better robots, or study the classics, or create computer games for the enjoyment of the guy at the beginning of the sentence. Human curiosity, ingenuity and general restlessness might be more powerful than laziness.

However, during the socialism phase, before the super-abundant society is achieved, everyone has to work hard towards the bright future. So people aren't necessarily doing what they want -- they are doing what is good for the group. That is where laziness is a big problem. If socialism is forced on a people, they will drag their feet.

The Soviet Communist Party saw education and enlightenment as a path to the future (others called this "indoctrination"). The Party first teaches you about your plight as an exploited worker, and gives you "class consciousness". Empowered by this, you put the bad guys up against the wall. Now comes the next phase -- educating you on how to be a good citizen of the new order. The Soviets called this producing the "New Communist Man". This was the stated goal of the Soviet education system when I was there. Lazy people would be... educated otherwise. This is, of course, vintage fascism, and the main reason why socialism failed in the USSR. Russians, like Americans, do not do well under fascism. China is much better at it.

By the way, the idea of a society of poets, artists and philosophers completely provided for by robots was also a stated goal. The harsh reality of how that kind of society would actually be achieved was described by H.G. Wells in The Time Traveler. Very depressing, and very true.

So yes. You're probably right. But IF we had a bunch of robots and IF we could do with our days whatever we felt like doing, then life would be sweet, eh?

2. many of the union leaders were in the socialist party. they wanted a revolution.

I never said they didn't. What I'm saying is that if they hadn't been so effective in improving the lives of American workers, popular discontent could've flipped this country onto a very different path.

3. not all crime is based on money. sometimes crime is done for ambitions sake, or for the hell of it, or simply in the heat of the moment. there would still be, and will always be, crime.

I'm not talking about psychopaths. Poverty and inequity are the starting point of most crime. Crime becomes cyclical, so not all crime is directly caused by poverty, but reducing poverty and inequity is the only way to break the cycle.

More to the point, you will always have crime under forced socialism, because to enforce socialism you must invent entire new categories of crime, like laziness and contrary thinking.