This topic contains 17 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Deathbal 8 years, 5 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #6851

    Stil8
    Participant

    Having some time to think about communism, I found a good and sensible explanation as to why it appears to promote less hard work… Because it’s goal, it’s ultimate goal is Hedonism! The philosophy that people should only work hard if what they do has 100% chance of giving them happiness/pleasure.
    And capitalism will NEVER allow that…

    Why? Because capitalism is based on material wealth, surplus and technology, which are only substitutes for happiness; and terrible substitutes in my opinion… They have exactly the same effect on the elderly as alcohol, drugs and tobacco have on the young. They distort their reasoning and way of thinking and create a cycle of confusion and illusion.

    And why do people even try to find substitutes for happiness rather than the real thing? Simple: Human error. Some guy (not Gavin) in pre-history tried some ayahuasca and offered it around to everyone else in his clan and they all got hooked. As their addictions grew, people slowly lost their understanding of happiness and started searching for something to fill the hole in their souls, and to satisfy their ‘need’ for some stronger ‘stuff’, and of all the things, they chose to have fetishes…
    That today is known as greed, and the stuff people have ‘greed’ for is known as private property…

    Hedonism is a truly great philosophy and it makes complete sense to me… In fact it is what America is supposed to promote: the pursuit of happiness!
    But instead America was actually founded by slave owners who wanted to be free… I don’t really believe the values of America were ever followed by the people in power, because the values of America seem pretty leftist to me…

    Ideal capitalism sounds to me like a system created by people who enjoy working hard to create new things (which I see no big problem with), but they believe that everyone else has that same passion… And so they try to force people to either make/help make new stuff (entrepreneurship) or clean their streets and starve, because they don’t have the same interests.

    Wrong! People have different interests and different passions and only a minority are actually respected… True Marxism and better yet Anarcho-communism offer everyone a chance to work hard for what makes them happy no matter how educated they are or how different they are.

    And anyone who says such systems are impossible to implement, just watch us, watch me and my left wing comrades as we crush the right-wing imperialists and put them where they belong: in their homes, not their fuhrer bunkers.

    Simply put: A pleasant life is worth dying for.

    #55756

    Deathbal
    Participant

    The pursuit of happiness. No one is guaranteed they’ll ever get it no matter how hard they work.

    I appreciate your passion for people. It is admirable. But I think you are looking too much into this.

    In any society you will have workers. People that pave roads, doctors, lawyers, police, garbage men, and people that do not work. Someone will have to work hard. “From each according to their ability to each according to their need” is hard to implement. Why would someone want to make a lot of money so the government could take it away for someone else? That is the main problem. Even here in the US, in the state I live, there is a limit to the overtime you put in. If you put more than say 12 hours in, most of your money goes to the government. What happens? People refuse it. It is hard to get people to work for nothing if they have the choice. Especially if it means someone else benefits.

    In order for a truly communist society to work, you would need to fill it with like minded individuals.

    #55757

    Stil8
    Participant

    @deathbal wrote:

    The pursuit of happiness. No one is guaranteed they’ll ever get it no matter how hard they work.

    I appreciate your passion for people. It is admirable. But I think you are looking too much into this.

    In any society you will have workers. People that pave roads, doctors, lawyers, police, garbage men, and people that do not work. Someone will have to work hard. “From each according to their ability to each according to their need” is hard to implement. Why would someone want to make a lot of money so the government could take it away for someone else? That is the main problem. Even here in the US, in the state I live, there is a limit to the overtime you put in. If you put more than say 12 hours in, most of your money goes to the government. What happens? People refuse it. It is hard to get people to work for nothing if they have the choice. Especially if it means someone else benefits.

    In order for a truly communist society to work, you would need to fill it with like minded individuals.

    Now first of all, I am not calling for distribution of wealth (government taking away your stuff for someone else), but the immediate removal of any laws that protect private property, the dissolution of the state and collective ownership. What you are thinking of is socialism (it is a transition, and I want to skip it), where the government owns everything. Unless by government you mean the workers, which have grouped into unions or communes, this is not the communism I want. The communism I want was actually attempted and it worked perfectly according to evidence from the Paris Commune.

    Communism (or at least my understanding of it) doesn’t ask for like-minded individuals at all… In fact it asks for as much diversity as possible. In theory people will find work fulfilling and enjoyable rather than a necessity to stay of the street… So in order for people to work, the jobs they have must make them happy. If all people were like minded, then they will also enjoy the same career, and no one will want to work in any other field than the one everyone else wants.
    So in order to have doctors, construction workers, teachers, etc, you’d have to have people with different likes/dislikes.

    In true communism, some free market will be allowed. Because the bourgeoisie are just as human as the proletariat.
    But if someone throws a family out on the street, like many rich people/organizations do (especially banks) then the people have every right to take away the property that someone took from that family and leave him/her to find a better way to pursue his/her goals.
    But never, under any circumstance, should the control of the economy/politics be given to a small group of people.

    What I want to say is that all the $ can be in possession of a single person, but the rest of society still has equal rights to that $ and can still distribute amongst themselves it if they decide to democratically. Nothing impossible about that if the majority are educated about how to organize a functional society.

    #55758

    Deathbal
    Participant

    I’ll be honest with you. I’m not totally sure what you mean. Are you advocating pure Democracy? Majority rules?

    #55759

    Stil8
    Participant

    @deathbal wrote:

    I’ll be honest with you. I’m not totally sure what you mean. Are you advocating pure Democracy? Majority rules?

    In a word yes… But with people making decisions together, based on what they know, whether it is worth doing, ethical or not, etc. I think that communism needs well-educated people, which is one of the things that it tries to accomplish, and one of the necessary tools for a stable democracy.
    Which would seem like creating a like-minded population, but in reality it doesn’t.

    A well-educated population will know when they are exploited and/or enslaved by a minority of ruling class, a dictator or a group of fanatic revolutionaries who have forgotten their aims… A well educated population will also know how to manage pure democracy without state/republic intervention. And thus it will still be an ‘under-control’ democracy: if 51% support something and 49% oppose it, then really, that’s still no different than 50-50 and some more discussion is needed.

    #55760

    Deathbal
    Participant

    Well then it’s settled. The United States does not apply. We are certainly not a well educated population.

    #55761

    Stil8
    Participant

    @deathbal wrote:

    Well then it’s settled. The United States does not apply. We are certainly not a well educated population.

    If you say so… I have little knowledge of how well US education systems are doing today and I’ve heard people praise it, mock it and criticize it…
    George Carlin is the one I am gonna believe right now.

    Well to be well educated, in my opinion, is to be able to learn on your own, form your own opinions, question authority and be aware of events around you.

    To be well-educated doesn’t at all mean to be able to build nukes, machines, and complicated politics or explore the depths of space and the ocean…

    The soviet union did all that, and yet, their leaders, Stalin especially, rounded up communists, anti-communists and civilians and shot them at firing squads or locked them up in psikhushkas. USSR definitely didn’t have a well-educated population; if it did, it would have collapsed long before 1991.

    #55762

    Deathbal
    Participant

    I can’t speak for the rest of my country, but in the state I live in and it’s surrounding states, most people can’t be bothered with politics or the way laws effect them. They do their complaining when it’s too late. Then they go back to their daily lives allowing others to plot against them. Here, lets take this good paragraph.

    Well to be well educated, in my opinion, is to be able to learn on your own, form your own opinions, question authority and be aware of events around you.

    Now it seems simple enough, right? But it is not. “The ability to learn on your own” takes effort. What I see most people do is form their own opinions based on hear say. Most are also oblivious to the events around them. But we still have people that question authority. A very odd mix indeed.

    I’d rather have a person i totally disagree with, but makes an educated choice, voting against me, than a person voting with me voting simply based on popularity, race or any bias. Because I know the first person is open if things go wrong. The second person is set in his ignorance.

    #55763

    Stil8
    Participant

    @deathbal wrote:

    I can’t speak for the rest of my country, but in the state I live in and it’s surrounding states, most people can’t be bothered with politics or the way laws effect them. They do their complaining when it’s too late. Then they go back to their daily lives allowing others to plot against them. Here, lets take this good paragraph.

    Well to be well educated, in my opinion, is to be able to learn on your own, form your own opinions, question authority and be aware of events around you.

    (1) Now it seems simple enough, right? But it is not. “The ability to learn on your own” takes effort. What I see most people do is form their own opinions based on hear say. Most are also oblivious to the events around them. But we still have people that question authority. A very odd mix indeed.

    (2) I’d rather have a person i totally disagree with, but makes an educated choice, voting against me, than a person voting with me voting simply based on popularity, race or any bias. Because I know the first person is open if things go wrong. The second person is set in his ignorance.

    (1) Well that’s what the responsibility of the school/education system would be… Yeah it is gonna take a lot of effort to ‘educate’ (but not brainwash) people, but in the end, I believe it will be worth it, don’t you think?

    (2) Well, that’s one thing we both can agree on. But nowadays we are gonna have people voting based on popularity, ’cause this is what most of today’s politicians rely on.

    In my opinion workers’ control of economy and how things are run is the best thing we can do… Of course I could be wrong, but there’s not enough evidence from history to really prove it, since such a system has never been tried for long enough to actually show any evidence of success or failure.

    As I said before, when I look for communism, I look at the Paris Commune, which was the first time in recorded history workers seized power, and from what I know, it worked fine until the army came in.

    #55764

    Deathbal
    Participant

    Even if your image of a communist society works, you have to understand that some people do not prefer it. No matter how well run any system can or may be, many people prefer an individual lifestyle. A life where you work for yourself and your family. This includes all of it’s flaws.

    This is what I meant by like minded people.

    #55765

    Stil8
    Participant

    @deathbal wrote:

    Even if your image of a communist society works, you have to understand that some people do not prefer it. No matter how well run any system can or may be, many people prefer an individual lifestyle. A life where you work for yourself and your family. This includes all of it’s flaws.

    This is what I meant by like minded people.

    Well, there is a difference between working for yourself and your family and throwing other families out on the street, or worse, throwing them in poverty…

    Yeah, capitalism starts out as as freedom for all, but it is just a transition phase between monarchy and plutocracy… Because, as communists predicted, the people will that rich first will never wish to part with their surplus wealth. Which means it is now harder for others to get rich (if there is any point in getting rich), because most the people who are already rich are hogging the wealth.

    And it gets harder and harder until it is a plutocracy…

    Plus, I never said anything about people not being allowed to work for themselves… After all that is what I meant by communism promoting hedonism.
    Whatever makes people happy is what they are going to do. I don’t see how collective ownership and workers’ control prevents that.

    #55766

    Stil8
    Participant

    Central planning vs Free market

    First of all, any purely uncontrolled system eventually turns into one that is controlled. Already happened with free market. Capitalism lasted from the industrial revolution to the end of WW2. After WW2, corporations and military already had enough control of the economy for it to be considered a planned economy.
    So the free market economy collapses, because eventually, those with more abilities and more interest in profit start having more effect on economy and politics.
    How must this be prevented? Government intervention is the most sensible solution, making the economy centrally planned again. So, a free market economy will turn into a planned one if it is left ‘free’ AND if the government intervenes. Same with a mixed economy (what we have now). It eventually becomes planned too.

    So, since a planned economy is what we always turn to, we should have a very good plan.
    I know of only three plans right now:

    State-planning
    (USSR, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia*): Success rate: 1/4—->
    Basically, the state has control of everything economical and social.
    Of all the countries listed above, only one prospered under such a system: Yugoslavia under Tito.

    Corporate planning (USA, Russia, UK, Germany): Success rate: 2.5/4—->
    A system where corporations have more influence on economy than anybody else, thus they run the country.
    USA has already begun failing, Russia has already failed, UK is still stable and Germany is a little less stable, but stable nonetheless.

    Workers’ Control (Yugoslavia*, Paris Commune) Success rate: 2/2—->
    A system, where everyone has equal democratic and advisory influence on economic, political and military plans, while leaving personal/social policies for individuals to decide without much external influence. Ideally, such a system would be organized and its decisions executed by workers’ councils and trade unions (pure syndicalism). Unfortunately, only two societies ever used very similar systems, but both succeeded in making people happy and improving the economy.

    *Yugoslavia: Yugoslavia was a special case, it had a very powerful dictatorship, but also a hight-degree of workers’ control, which is rare in dictatorships. And workers’ control was the reason it prospered, but the dictatorship was the reason it collapsed… After Tito’s death, a maniacal despot took his place and began trying to revive nationalism. He was successful and his actions resulted in genocides, and some of the worst war crimes in world history.

    #55767

    Rommel
    Participant

    The best plan is the one made when the battle is over. – Erwin J. E. Rommel

    It scares me to think of living in a country where everyone has an equal say in the way things are structured. If morons become the majority (and they very well may) the cable companies will be running nothing but movies for morons.

    I don’t think I would choose to live long if Dumb and Dumber was the best intellectual stimulation that was provided.

    The fact that an imbecile like Sarah Palin was picked as the VP for McCain and came close to being elected, says much about the intelligence level of America’s voting public.

    The truth of the matter is that people are not equal. Some are very adept at solving problems, while others seem to be only adept at creating them. I’m not going to offer a solution but passing a driving exam seems to be a poor qualifier for allowing someone to vote for the President of the country.

    #55768

    Stil8
    Participant

    @rommel wrote:

    The best plan is the one made when the battle is over. – Erwin J. E. Rommel

    It scares me to think of living in a country where everyone has an equal say in the way things are structured. If morons become the majority (and they very well may) the cable companies will be running nothing but movies for morons.

    I don’t think I would choose to live long if Dumb and Dumber was the best intellectual stimulation that was provided.

    The fact that an imbecile like Sarah Palin was picked as the VP for McCain and came close to being elected, says much about the intelligence level of America’s voting public.

    The truth of the matter is that people are not equal. Some are very adept at solving problems, while others seem to be only adept at creating them. I’m not going to offer a solution but passing a driving exam seems to be a poor qualifier for allowing someone to vote for the President of the country.

    Well, in a dumb world, one who is smart, would appear to be dumb.

    The chances of the majority population going dumb are very low, considering so far, present and former communist societies still hold a record in education.
    George Carlin was right when he said that he does something that the majority don’t (thinking)… And in order for that third plan to work, people must be able to think for themselves, rather than share the same opinion with one politician.

    And it would scare me to think of living in a country, where only a few have influence on how things are structured, and the power is so heavily concentrated in their hands, that they go corrupt and can now be compared to religious fanatics and despotic terrorists.

    #55769

    Deathbal
    Participant

    In any system you will have ups and downs. Like Rommel pointed out if a bunch of clowns gained power just because they were the majority.

    Take the US for example. The true power lies in the House and Senate. Not the Pres or veep. Sarah Palin doesn’t matter. Doesn’t matter if a horse is President.

    Bush spent us into the poor house and Obama is following suit 10 fold. But the House and Senate are to blame. Even though they like to wash their hands clean of their own votes.

    Speaking of Palin, look at our VP now? He is an embarrassment. He can’t even put together a coherent sentence. People have to come out for him and explain what he meant. Our Speaker of the house. Has anyone heard her lately? She makes Palin look like a great communicator. The head of the ways and means committee is a TAX EVADER! How has it come to this?

    I blame our public for allowing this and continually voting in the same people. People have to learn to vote out the dead weight.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 19 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.