|
androbot2084
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 24, 2011
Posts: 3091
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| First of all if we are ever to embrace communism we have to look beyond money. Communism is considered a failure because communism cannot provide people with the same standard of living as an advanced capitalist nation. However capitalism is fatally flawed because capitalism treats money as a god and people as dogs. Therefore capitalism is fatally flawed because there is no love for people but only a love for money. I would much rather live in a society with love and with a lower standard of living as long as we had a communist society that cares about the poor and does not allow the poor to become homeless, hungry and without medical coverage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29318
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| androbot2084 wrote: | | First of all if we are ever to embrace communism we have to look beyond money. Communism is considered a failure because communism cannot provide people with the same standard of living as an advanced capitalist nation. However capitalism is fatally flawed because capitalism treats money as a god and people as dogs. Therefore capitalism is fatally flawed because there is no love for people but only a love for money. I would much rather live in a society with love and with a lower standard of living as long as we had a communist society that cares about the poor and does not allow the poor to become homeless, hungry and without medical coverage. |
In the capitalist system, money is a means of exchange. The magic part is credit, which, in effect, is creating money out of nothing but a promise to repay. The capitalist system works on credit. Long before capitalism, there was money which is the only way of mediating trade when there are a lot of goods and services to be exchanged. Money originated thousands of years ago. Capitalism is only a few hundred years old.
ruveyn
Last edited by ruveyn on Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| androbot2084 wrote: | | First of all if we are ever to embrace communism we have to look beyond money. Communism is considered a failure because communism cannot provide people with the same standard of living as an advanced capitalist nation. However capitalism is fatally flawed because capitalism treats money as a god and people as dogs. Therefore capitalism is fatally flawed because there is no love for people but only a love for money. I would much rather live in a society with love and with a lower standard of living as long as we had a communist society that cares about the poor and does not allow the poor to become homeless, hungry and without medical coverage. |
Communism is even more inhumane than capitalism unless one creates some ideal image of communism that's straight out of Stalin's propagandamachine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sweetleaf
Metalhead
Joined: Jan 07, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 14828
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TM wrote: | | androbot2084 wrote: | | First of all if we are ever to embrace communism we have to look beyond money. Communism is considered a failure because communism cannot provide people with the same standard of living as an advanced capitalist nation. However capitalism is fatally flawed because capitalism treats money as a god and people as dogs. Therefore capitalism is fatally flawed because there is no love for people but only a love for money. I would much rather live in a society with love and with a lower standard of living as long as we had a communist society that cares about the poor and does not allow the poor to become homeless, hungry and without medical coverage. |
Communism is even more inhumane than capitalism unless one creates some ideal image of communism that's straight out of Stalin's propagandamachine. |
what is so inhumane about the idea of a classless society, what there won't be a lower class for the upper class to look down on?
_________________
It's like alice in wonderland except, my names not alice and this is the real world not a dream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
NathanealWest
Toucan
Joined: Jan 05, 2011
Age: 26
Posts: 258
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jacoby wrote: | How can communism exist without authoritarian leadership? What happens to people that don't want to work for the collective?
"Communism" can only work in a small subsistence tribal environment and even those are certaily hierarchical societies. We'd still be living in caves if we lived according to communistic principles. |
It's actually more like because we left the caves and developed agriculture and technology that we left communism behind. The division of labor is the beginning of class and status. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sweetleaf wrote: | | TM wrote: | | androbot2084 wrote: | | First of all if we are ever to embrace communism we have to look beyond money. Communism is considered a failure because communism cannot provide people with the same standard of living as an advanced capitalist nation. However capitalism is fatally flawed because capitalism treats money as a god and people as dogs. Therefore capitalism is fatally flawed because there is no love for people but only a love for money. I would much rather live in a society with love and with a lower standard of living as long as we had a communist society that cares about the poor and does not allow the poor to become homeless, hungry and without medical coverage. |
Communism is even more inhumane than capitalism unless one creates some ideal image of communism that's straight out of Stalin's propagandamachine. |
what is so inhumane about the idea of a classless society, what there won't be a lower class for the upper class to look down on? |
Hence, why I said "creates some ideal image of communism that's straight out of Stalin's Propaganda-machine" the system. You assume that if there is no money, there won't be social classes. There won't be official social classes, but there aren't in High School either yet there is hardly a system that simulates a class-less system better. People create classes, money does not. If I made an argument that was half as reductionist as yours I'd just say "What's so bad about a system that rewards each individual for their effort"?
You speak of communism but act like you've never read about any of the failed implementations of it and why it failed to work. I've frequently said that communism would be an idea system if it worked how Marx stated it should, however that's also like saying that the Golden Rule is the only law you need while totally ignoring the fact that it cannot possibly work. After 10 pages of this thread and every possible example of how communism cannnot work and has failed to do anything productive you keep repeating the same idealized "What if" arguments.
There hasn't been a communist state which didn't have a list of human rights violations as long as Kim Kardashian's list of satisfied black men. If you are going to argue for communism, you need to come up with a way to implement communism where it doesn't get stuck in the strong authoritarian rule it requires prior to said "classless" society. That's excluding all the economic factors that tend to plague communism such as bureaucracy, mismanagement and the fact that nobody knows how one is supposed to make big decisions in a communist state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
androbot2084
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 24, 2011
Posts: 3091
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Under capitalism people look down at me because they consider me an autistic retard. But under communism my intelligence is judged by the intelligence of the collective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sweetleaf
Metalhead
Joined: Jan 07, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 14828
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TM wrote: | | Sweetleaf wrote: | | TM wrote: | | androbot2084 wrote: | | First of all if we are ever to embrace communism we have to look beyond money. Communism is considered a failure because communism cannot provide people with the same standard of living as an advanced capitalist nation. However capitalism is fatally flawed because capitalism treats money as a god and people as dogs. Therefore capitalism is fatally flawed because there is no love for people but only a love for money. I would much rather live in a society with love and with a lower standard of living as long as we had a communist society that cares about the poor and does not allow the poor to become homeless, hungry and without medical coverage. |
Communism is even more inhumane than capitalism unless one creates some ideal image of communism that's straight out of Stalin's propagandamachine. |
what is so inhumane about the idea of a classless society, what there won't be a lower class for the upper class to look down on? |
Hence, why I said "creates some ideal image of communism that's straight out of Stalin's Propaganda-machine" the system. You assume that if there is no money, there won't be social classes. There won't be official social classes, but there aren't in High School either yet there is hardly a system that simulates a class-less system better. People create classes, money does not. If I made an argument that was half as reductionist as yours I'd just say "What's so bad about a system that rewards each individual for their effort"?
You speak of communism but act like you've never read about any of the failed implementations of it and why it failed to work. I've frequently said that communism would be an idea system if it worked how Marx stated it should, however that's also like saying that the Golden Rule is the only law you need while totally ignoring the fact that it cannot possibly work. After 10 pages of this thread and every possible example of how communism cannnot work and has failed to do anything productive you keep repeating the same idealized "What if" arguments.
There hasn't been a communist state which didn't have a list of human rights violations as long as Kim Kardashian's list of satisfied black men. If you are going to argue for communism, you need to come up with a way to implement communism where it doesn't get stuck in the strong authoritarian rule it requires prior to said "classless" society. That's excluding all the economic factors that tend to plague communism such as bureaucracy, mismanagement and the fact that nobody knows how one is supposed to make big decisions in a communist state. |
I've said reapeatedly that I know why it didn't work, I still can't help liking the idea of a classless society that true communism would be...but yeah the way most people think I can't imagine its going to be put in place and certainly not in my life time.
_________________
It's like alice in wonderland except, my names not alice and this is the real world not a dream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
NeantHumain
Phoenix
![]()
Joined: Jun 25, 2004
Posts: 5119
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think either Slate or Salon did an article explaining this a little while ago. In my mind, communism is by definition anarchical: stateless; classless; and devoid of coercive, hierarchical relations of power. The means of production are common property. The economic problem of scarcity is solved. Everyone just more or less voluntarily cooperates and gets along, and advanced technology allows for a superabundance of at the very least the necessities of life. It's definitely a utopia and not realistic, given human nature.
Socialism, on the other hand, is a very broad category that includes everything from anarchism to totalitarianism. Communism would be one form of socialism. Then we have to look at their relationship to capitalism and liberal democracy, reform vs. revolution, bottom-up vs. top-down, their relationship to technology and progress, nationalism vs. internationalism/cosmopolitanism, etc. Marxist-Leninists/Bolsheviks were one type of revolutionary socialist, and they ostensibly sought to establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat," a socialist state, as a prélude to communism, as is orthodox to Marxist thought. In contrast, social democrats of the Western European variety are much more amenable to working within a capitalist liberal democracy and gradually reforming it. Many social-democratic parties today are comfortable with capitalism and just want a more expansive social-safety net rather than full-blown socialism. Democratic socialists, on the other hand, are a bit further to the left and prefer grassroots organization rather than a centralized state that's halfway between socialism and liberal capitalism; they are more opposed to capitalist and for-profit private enterprise.
The Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is obviously not working towards anarchical communism, and I would say they're moving more and more towards capitalism but in a more corporatist manner (a state-private alliance that some might call state capitalism) than the more liberal variety seen in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe. The Chinese Communist Party wants to retain an authoritarian political structure and hope their subjects don't mind since many are getting materially wealthier, developing a burgeoning bourgeoisie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
LennytheWicked
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 23, 2011
Posts: 516
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scubasteve wrote: | | Sweetleaf wrote: | | They never even started with actual communism, the greed and want for power was already there in the beginning hence the reason it never was communism. But yes I agree those traits would be bad for communism, that does not mean I like having a capitalist society based on those very traits though. |
My view: If people are going to be greedy anyway, why not turn their greed into production? |
While this thread has veered away from the original topic ['OH EM GEE, THAT'S SO COMMUNIST!' 'You mean fascist.' 'COMMUNISM!'] I want to say something.
Capitalism is not very productive. It's lucrative, but not productive. Productivity means an environment where ideas can and do come from anywhere and everywhere. But once the object became getting rich rather than getting your ideas out there--EG, the guy who invented the TV wanted to use an educational medium and died filthy stinking rich and crying because it was not used as an educational medium as entertainment was more lucrative--it became a system that caters to a select few, and then whoever those select few select.
In the words of Mary Robbinson:
"Titled gluttons dainties carving,
Genius in a garret starving." |
|
| Back to top |
|
LennytheWicked
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 23, 2011
Posts: 516
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TM wrote: | The core problems with communism is:
A: Everyone has to agree to abide by the system and stand by their word.
B: It requires authoritarian leadership to be implemented and executed in the beginning, such leadership is rarely willing to give up power once it has been attained.
C: It offers little incentive to work harder on a large level. In effect, in a group of 30 - 100 people or so, communism works well. In a country of 10 million + people , most of whom have never met each other its tricky to get by the natural tribalism and self-centered nature of human beings.
D: It tends to assume that the country is already at a level of near full industrialization or that this must be done rapidly in order to avoid the system collapsing. The macro-economic implications here are enormous. |
A: I agree, this is a problem.
B: It doesn't require authoritarian leadership, it just always 'happens' that way. Tribal communities actually did run on communism; everyone owned everything and they were expected to serve the tribe, not the leader. In small-scale circumstances, communism is more often than not required for survival. Large scale, people are too likely to put their trust in a sycophant.
C: Sometimes this is true. I believe the problem is that people are too willing to put themselves behind a single person or a small group of five-to-ten people. They need to be able to stand in solidarity rather than stand behind a figurehead if they want a new system to succeed. I link this back to A.
D: Not true; see my argument for B. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LennytheWicked wrote: | | TM wrote: | The core problems with communism is:
A: Everyone has to agree to abide by the system and stand by their word.
B: It requires authoritarian leadership to be implemented and executed in the beginning, such leadership is rarely willing to give up power once it has been attained.
C: It offers little incentive to work harder on a large level. In effect, in a group of 30 - 100 people or so, communism works well. In a country of 10 million + people , most of whom have never met each other its tricky to get by the natural tribalism and self-centered nature of human beings.
D: It tends to assume that the country is already at a level of near full industrialization or that this must be done rapidly in order to avoid the system collapsing. The macro-economic implications here are enormous. |
A: I agree, this is a problem.
B: It doesn't require authoritarian leadership, it just always 'happens' that way. Tribal communities actually did run on communism; everyone owned everything and they were expected to serve the tribe, not the leader. In small-scale circumstances, communism is more often than not required for survival. Large scale, people are too likely to put their trust in a sycophant.
C: Sometimes this is true. I believe the problem is that people are too willing to put themselves behind a single person or a small group of five-to-ten people. They need to be able to stand in solidarity rather than stand behind a figurehead if they want a new system to succeed. I link this back to A.
D: Not true; see my argument for B. |
Tribal communities were leader-based, usually a man based on some kind of meritocracy. You were expected to serve the tribe, but there was always a tribal chief or a shaman, that lead by "my way or a weapon to your face". |
|
| Back to top |
|
LennytheWicked
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 23, 2011
Posts: 516
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TM wrote: | | Tribal communities were leader-based, usually a man based on some kind of meritocracy. You were expected to serve the tribe, but there was always a tribal chief or a shaman, that lead by "my way or a weapon to your face". |
Actually, some Native American tribes were described as having leaders who benefited no more from being in a leadership position than the non-leaders. They ate as well as everyone else, they sometimes didn't have currency and when they did they usually had about the same amount as everyone else in the tribe. The 'advantage' of being a leader in such a tribe was having people think you were wise and coming to you with all of their problems, which I'm quite certain would have gotten old fast. They were also the ones who had to deal with martial matters [alliteration ftw] and trading with other tribes. I give a slight exception in that women and men had quite different roles [men as hunters, women as farmers and/or mothers]. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LennytheWicked wrote: | | TM wrote: | | Tribal communities were leader-based, usually a man based on some kind of meritocracy. You were expected to serve the tribe, but there was always a tribal chief or a shaman, that lead by "my way or a weapon to your face". |
Actually, some Native American tribes were described as having leaders who benefited no more from being in a leadership position than the non-leaders. They ate as well as everyone else, they sometimes didn't have currency and when they did they usually had about the same amount as everyone else in the tribe. The 'advantage' of being a leader in such a tribe was having people think you were wise and coming to you with all of their problems, which I'm quite certain would have gotten old fast. They were also the ones who had to deal with martial matters [alliteration ftw] and trading with other tribes. I give a slight exception in that women and men had quite different roles [men as hunters, women as farmers and/or mothers]. |
Which tribes were they? |
|
| Back to top |
|
LennytheWicked
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 23, 2011
Posts: 516
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TM wrote: | | Which tribes were they? |
I'm not entirely sure which specific tribes they were. We discussed this in History, and I'm also fairly sure many tribes didn't have a written language and didn't keep records [not much to write on]. I'm trying to figure out which tribes they were right now.
EDIT:
Here's something similar to what we talked about, it's fairly brief and doesn't mention specifics though. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/primitive_communism.aspx |
|
| Back to top |
|
  |
Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index
-> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion
|
Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
