"Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity" (2 Viewers)

[bigboyjames]

There is a lot you can write about on this topic.

However, leaving out a lot of the explanation and going straight to the core, I believe that if the self wants to thrive, which it normally does, there is a need to care for others. To avoid the inevitable backlash. Man will tend to drive out elements that cause them harm and perceived harm in all their forms (eg inequality). The civil rights movement broke down significant barriers of racial inequality, the feminist movement reduced inequality of the sexes, and the major forms of totalitarianism Bolshevism and Fascism, fell. Capitalism (in its implied, practiced form, as is common with politics, not its literal meaning) is the third major tyranny and it too will be dismantled. It's certainly not anchored, far from it, and the business world know it.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

humans are intrinsically selfish, and competitive. Mankind basically worships power.

You are not entirely incorrect, however you are (like all most every other poster hitherto) still making this same assertion with no evidence to back it up. I have provided an argument which you can read in my previous posts (note in particular the article The Perspective of Communism from the ICC) which no one has been able to respond to. This tells me quite plainly that you can't, yet despite this still dogmatically preach the same bullshit.

you can not resolve this with any political philosophy.

Correct indeed. The solution can be found only in the class struggle.

karl marx sucks kok...go eat hitler dick and north korean leader guy

Zeam, please stop wasting our time. Your argument was ripped to shreds and you can't acknowledge it. Either come back when you have a real response or shut up and go read a book.

 

[Crates]

ZeitGeist my man, I gotta give it to ya, you know your stuff and you've definitely been winning this argument.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Couple of quick points, read through the manifesto and grabbed Das Kapital off dad's bookshelf, hoeing through that in between assorted Uni assignments. Keep in mind I haven't read over the entirety of this thread so some points may have been already raised.

1. Change in mentality of the proletariat, as in a paradigm shift in self realisation, as a thought experiment is an interesting concept. As far as I'm aware Marx and others didn't address the issue as anything other than a whole population paradigm shift in thought. Unless what is directly implied is that small pockets work towards this position and it is attractive to others who join in.

2. Removal of private property could possibly have substantial privacy concerns. I understand what is being promoted is not a centralised statist system where items/goods are allocated, but a collective society where all goods that are produced are offered up to the society for distribution, but there are some serious issues there. Unless this is purely fundamentalist and all of one's actions are considered to be of benefit to the populous.

3. In regards to the overall experiment and tangential to point one, interactions between an instance of the thought experiment and other economic/social systems? How does one effectively translate between a society that ascribes intrinsic value and rights to property and one that does not?

4. Dealing with social anomalies; whilst the information regarding specialised transfers of information (The doctor example) is one in which all can attempt the system and it works out to somewhat of a meritocracy, how does the system deal with those who cannot produce or be productive? I would assume that they would be embraced and dealt with (logical as we provide for the less well off in our somewhat workfare state, though I understand the concepts are vastly different, the premise stays the same)

5. Store of currency and equality of labour, admittedly this comes down to LTV and modern theories of value-add, but there is criticism to be made of the equivalence of all fruits of labour (At least, as far as my interpretation is going). Not addressing this on the grounds of paying someone more or increasing rewards, but rather overall project length (building a bridge versus managing paperwork). The concept of 'unemployment' seems to not exist.

6. Scarcity seems to play a minimal part, when it comes to the goods that are produced from scarce resources are they directed towards items which provide greatest utility for the greatest number of people in the society, or are they divided equally so that social members can do what they please (within the framwork of giving back to society).


These are the main issues/questions that I've identified thus far.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

You are not entirely incorrect, however you are (like all most every other poster hitherto) still making this same assertion with no evidence to back it up. I have provided an argument which you can read in my previous posts (note in particular the article The Perspective of Communism from the ICC) which no one has been able to respond to. This tells me quite plainly that you can't, yet despite this still dogmatically preach the same bullshit.

Allow me to address that article

Quoting from the perspective of Communism - section 3 - Is Communism against human nature

Human nature’ is a bit like the Philosophers’ Stone for which the alchemists searched for centuries. Up till now, all significant studies of ‘social invariants’ (as the sociologists would have it) — i.e. characteristics of human behaviour which are the same in all societies — have ended up showing the extent to which human psychology and attitudes are variable and linked to the social framework in which the individual develops. In fact, if we wanted to point to a fundamental characteristic of this ‘human nature’, to the feature which distinguishes man from other animals, we would have to point out the enormous importance of ‘acquired’ as opposed to the ‘innate’; to the decisive role played by education, by the social environment in which human beings grow up.

An adequate understanding of knowledge and memetics, but a theory that is substantially limited by the lack of knowledge of overall genetics at the time. As much as one is programmed by the memes that surround them and as important as memes are to social and evolutionary development, this has definitely aged.

Apart from that, the part played in all of this by ‘innate’ characteristics transmitted genetically to the architect by the parents can be essentially reduced to the fact that the fruit of their union wasn’t a bee or a pigeon, but a human being like themselves: i.e. an individual belonging to an animal species in which the ‘acquired’ element is by far the most important factor in the development of the adult.

Arguments of free will versus determinism aside, acquiring particular attributes is accurate, we do develop through interaction with society. Hell, even what we find sexually attractive is programmed by society (Case in point, natives in New Guinea they find large breasted, large women with huge fuzzy afros to be incredibly desirable and find the 'traditional' model of blonde and thin, or whatever, to be quite unattractive). Our interactions with society are programmed by our biology. We form bonds or pairs instinctively, we group into societies similar to ourselves instinctively. What has not been addressed is the major divide between instinct and overriding social programming. What is being asserted is a direct overreliance on social programming with no supportive evidence, no scientific links, or anything other than a generalised appeal to 'general knowledge'.

It’s the same with behaviour as it is with the products of labour. Thus theft is a ‘crime’, a perturbation in the functioning of society which would become catastrophic if it became generalised. One who steals, or who threatens, abducts or kills people with the aim of stealing, is a ‘criminal’, and will almost unanimously be considered as a harmful, anti-social element who must be ‘prevented from doing harm’

(unless of course he does this stealing within the framework of the existing laws, in which case the skill in extorting surplus value from the proletariat will be praised and generously rewarded, just as generals skilled in mass murder are awarded medals).

As an aside that is without a doubt the most horrifically grotesque logical fallacy I've seen in years. Non-Sequitur, ad hominem and a gigantic straw man to top it off.

But the behaviour known as ‘stealing’, and criminals who ‘steal’, ‘murder’, etc, as well as everything to do with them - laws, judges, policemen, prisons, detective films, crime novels - would any of this exist if there was nothing to steal? If the abundance made possible by the development of the productive forces was at the free disposition of every member of society? Obviously not! And we could give many more examples showing just how much behaviour, attitudes, feelings, and relations between human beings are determined by the social milieu.

Performing a mathematical operation of setting the value of property to zero does not remove the instinctual value people ascribe to possessing it, even fleetingly. To be a bit of a dick for a moment, having all items be equally worthless does not reduce the value of a treatment of antibiotics to a dying man. Situations ascribe value to items which diminishes the overall notion of items as being valueless and property as being theft.

The peevish-minded will object to this by saying that if asocial behaviour exists, no matter what form it takes, in different forms of society, it’s because at the root of ‘human nature’ there’s an anti-social element, an element of aggressiveness against others, of ‘potential criminality’. They will argue that, very often, people don’t steal out of material necessity; that gratuitous crime exists; that if the Nazis could commit such atrocities, it’s because there’s something evil in Man, which comes to the surface in certain conditions. In fact such objections only show that there’s no human nature which is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in itself; Man is a social animal whose numerous potentialities take on different expressions depending on the conditions that are lived in. Statistics speak eloquently on this question: is it ‘human nature’ which gets worse during periods of crisis in society, when we see a growth in criminality and all kinds of morbid behaviour? On the contrary, isn’t the development of ‘asocial’ attitudes among an increasing number of individuals the expression of the fact that the existing society is becoming more and more incapable of satisfying human needs - needs which are eminently social and which can no longer be satisfied in a system which is less and less functioning as a society, a community?

The lack of moral absolutes does not in and of itself provide a framework for communism. Situations define morality, morality does not define situations.

The same peevish spirits base their rejection of the possibility of communism on the following argument: ‘You talk about a society which will really satisfy human needs, but the desire for property and power over others are themselves essential human needs, and communism, which excludes them, is therefore unable to satisfy human needs. Communism is impossible because man is egoistic.’

I assume this is the core of your argument and I cite 'the selfish gene' to combat it. Our want to propagate our genetic data is so great that we will attempt almost anything to perpetuate our own genetic code. Property ownership within our society is a means of doing so, and thus the communist argument assuages this particular item, but I do not feel that it overall combats the very straightforward nature of darwinian evolution and genetic progression.

In her ‘Introduction to Political Economy’ Rosa Luxemburg described the reaction of the British bourgeoisie when, in the cause of conquering India, they came across peoples who had no private property. They consoled themselves by saying that these people were ‘savages’, but it was still rather embarrassing for people who had been taught that private property was something ‘natural’ to conclude that it was precisely these ‘savages’ who had the most ‘artificial’ way of living! In reality, humanity has such a ‘natural need for private property’ that it did without it for over a million years. And in many cases it was only after bloody massacres, as in the case of the Indians described by Rosa Luxemburg, that they were instilled with this ‘natural need’. It’s the same with commerce, that ‘unique, natural’ form of the circulation of goods, the natives’ ignorance of which so scandalised the colonialists. Inseparable from private property, it arose with it and will disappear with it.

This isn't a sociological study, it's an anecdotal ascribing of a particular situation as having value. The merit of it as a talking point is questionable and the value of it as a scientific enforcement for communist theory is zero.

There’s also the idea that if there was no profit to stimulate the development of production, if the individual effort of the worker wasn’t recompensed by a wage, no one would produce anything anymore. True enough, no one would produce in a capitalist way anymore; i.e. in a system based on profit and wage labour, where the slightest scientific discovery has to be financially viable,

In regards to scientific discovery being viable, we currently do not have such a system. Arguing against fully fundamentalist Liberalism does not sway the case in the 21st century.

where work is a curse to the overwhelming majority of workers, on account of its length, its intensity, and its inhuman form. On the other hand, does the scientist who, through his research, participates in the progress of technology, always need a material stimulant to work? Generally they’re paid less than the sales executive who makes no contribution to the advancement of knowledge. Is manual labour necessarily disagreeable? If so, why do people talk about the ‘love of craftsmanship’, why is there such a craze for ‘do-it-yourself’ and all sorts of manual activities which are often very expensive? In fact, when labour isn’t alienated, absurd, exhausting, when its products no longer become forces hostile to the workers, but serve to really satisfy the needs of the collective then labour will become a prime human need, one of the essential forms of the flourishing of human potential. In communist society, human beings will produce for pleasure.

That is asserting a particular 'fact' without providing any substantive evidence. It's somewhat absurdly utopian to assume that all individuals will exchange the currency of today for the labour of love. You must admit this has more than a slight tinge of utopian nonsense.

A society in which people compete with each other, in which they have opposing interests, in which productive labour is a curse, in which coercion is a permanent fact of life, in which the most elementary human needs are crushed underfoot for the great majority - such a society ‘needs’ leaders, just as it needs policemen and religion. But once all these aberrations have been suppressed, we’ll soon see whether leaders and power will still be necessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Our sceptic will respond: ‘but men need to dominate others or be dominated. Whatever kind of society you have, there will still be the power of some people over others.’ It’s true that a slave who has always had his feet in chains may have the impression that there is no other way of walking, but a free person will never have this impression. In communist society, free men and women won’t be like the frogs in the fairytale who wanted to have a king.

Direct assertion lacking any form of evidence or information regarding it. Asserting something does not make it accurate. It's similar to saying "All those who believe in Jesus will enter the kingdon of heaven".

The ‘need’ that people may have to exercise power over others is the flip-side of what could be called the ‘slave mentality’: a significant example of this is the cringing, obedient army adjutant who’s always barking orders at his ‘inferiors’. If people feel a need to exert power over others, it’s because they have no power over their own lives and over the running of society as a whole. The will to power in each person is the measure of their own impotence. In a society in which human beings are no longer the impotent slaves of either natural or economic laws, a society in which they have freed themselves from the latter and are consciously able to use the former for their own purposes, a society in which they are ‘masters without slaves’, they will no longer need that wretched substitute for power - the domination of others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_(biology)

It’s the same with aggressiveness as with the so-called ‘lust for power’. Faced with the permanent aggression of a society which grinds them into the dirt, plunges them into perpetual anguish and represses all their most basic desires, individuals are necessarily aggressive. This is no more than the survival instinct, which exists in all animals. Some psychologists consider that aggression is an inherent compulsion in all animal species and will therefore express itself in all circumstances. But even if this is the case, let’s give humanity the chance to use this aggression to combat the material obstacles which stand in the way of our own development - then we’ll see whether there’s a real need to exert aggression against other people.

Empty theorising and again another post hoc fallacy.

‘Everyone for themselves’ is supposed to be a basic human characteristic. It’s undoubtedly a characteristic of bourgeois humanity with its ideal of the ‘self-made man’, but this is simply the ideological expression of the economic reality of capitalism and has nothing to do with ‘human nature’. Otherwise one would have to say that ‘human nature’ has been radically transformed since primitive communism, or even since feudalism with its village communities. In fact individualism massively entered the world of ideas when small independent owners appeared in the countryside (when serfdom was abolished) and in the towns. Made up of small owners who had been successful - mainly by ruining their rivals - the bourgeoisie was a fanatical adherent of this ideology and saw it as a fact of nature. For example, it had no scruples about using Darwin’s theory of evolution to justify the social ‘struggle for survival’, the war of all against all.

The thing is we've moved past letting darwinism justify all of our issues. Any understanding of how human nature is derived from reciprocal altruism would outline this. That said, reciprocal altruism does not by its very nature define communism. This section shows a substantial lack of undersatnding of biology. One can be socially defined, but the biological triggers still exist.

But with the appearance of the proletariat, the associated class par excellence, a breach was opened in the domination of individualism. For the working class, solidarity is the elementary precondition for defending its material interests. At this level of reasoning, we can already reply to those who claim that human beings are ‘naturally egoistic’. If they are egoistic they are also intelligent, and the simple desire to defend their interests pushes them towards association and solidarity as soon as the social conditions allow it.

'wat'

But this isn’t all: in this social being par excellence, solidarity and altruism are essential needs in more ways than one. People need the solidarity of others, but they also need to show solidarity to others. This is something which can be seen even in a society as alienated as ours, expressed in the seemingly banal idea that ‘everyone needs to feel useful to others’. Some will argue that altruism is also a form of egoism because those that practise it do it above all for their own pleasure. Fair enough - but that’s just another way of putting forward the idea defended by communists that there is no essential opposition - on the contrary - between individual interest and collective interest.

Ignores the stark dichotomy between ingroup/outgroup reciprocal altruism and shows its age as a document used to form ethical positions.

he opposition between individual and society is an expression of societies of exploitation, societies based on private property (i.e. private to others), and all this is very logical - how could there be a harmony between those who suffer from oppression and the very institutions that guarantee and perpetuate this oppression? In such a society, altruism can only appear in the form of charity or of sacrifice, i.e. the negation of others or the negation of oneself; it does not appear as the affirmation, the common and complementary flowering of the self and others.

Completely ignores and misunderstands the basic motivators of altruism and charity. Altruism and charity are not necessarily derived from sacrifice. This ascription is both shallow and ill-informed.

Contrary to what the bourgeoisie would like us to believe, communism is not, therefore, the negation of individuality. It is capitalism, which reduces the worker to an appendage of the machine, which negates individuality; and this negation of the individual has reached its most extreme limits under the specific form of capitalism in decay: state capitalism.

It's he said she said, but I won't disagree with you in regards to the hatred they apparently have for the USSR and others.

In communism, in a society which has got rid of that enemy of freedom par excellence - the state, which will have no reason for existing - each member of society will be living in the reign of freedom. Because humanity can only realise its innumerable potentialities in a social way, and because the antagonisms between individual interest and collective interest will have disappeared, new and immense vistas will be opened up for the flowering of each individual.

What if one's ability to express freedom, say, by destroying items, causes others to lose that freedom?

Similarly, far from accentuating the dreary uniformity that has been generalised by capitalism, as the bourgeoisie claims, communism is above all a society of diversity, because it will break down the division of labour which fixes each individual in a single role for the rest of their life.

Aging, but a valid point.

In communism, each new step forward in knowledge or technology won’t lead to an even higher level of specialisation, but will serve to expand the field of activities through which each individual can develop. As Marx and Engels put it:

Again, it's a wishful assertion. We have the ability to change societal roles but there is a substantial social and economic cost attached.

Whatever the bourgeoisie and all the sceptical and peevish-minded may say, communism is made for humanity; human beings can live in such a society and make such a society live!

Empty statement

There remains an argument to deal with: ‘OK, communism is necessary and materially possible. Yes, men and women could live in such a society. But today humanity is so alienated under capitalist society that it will never have the strength to undertake a transformation as gigantic as the communist revolution.’ We’ll try to answer this in the next part of the article.

Self congratulatory statement. I'll read the rest of them but I hope to the FSM they're not as poorly written.

EDIT1: I'm not going to directly assert every scientific reference I've made but my information came from the following sources:

A Short History of Nearly Everything - Bill Bryson
Why Darwin Matters - Michael Shermer
The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins
The Science of Good and Evil - Michael Shermer

and many many more.

 

[withoutaface]

Why would anyone want to? Just about the only labour that could be truly yours to appropriate would be the products of some sort of subsistence agriculture or hunting and gathering. This option makes no sense what so ever when you consider that all your needs (and more) could well be satisfied by partaking in and sharing in the product of social labour.

You didn't answer my question, you simply avoided it with idealism. If I am the best in my field (or even just better than average) I am going to get a better deal by contracting myself out than by throwing my goods onto the heap. Your model is unsustainable because there is no incentive for those who possess the greatest degree of skill to remain inside it, and as such you'd likely see the communal labour pool get lower and lower until all that remains is those who are not highly skilled, who would still gain benefit from trading with the rest of society which has split off (would seem to me that these would perform a similar role to trade unions).

The model you've proposed is unsustainable because it assumes that people will pursue the common good above their own self interest, and the only way to ensure this is through some form of coercion (which I believe you've already ruled out.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

The model you've proposed is unsustainable because it assumes that people will pursue the common good above their own self interest, and the only way to ensure this is through some form of coercion (which I believe you've already ruled out.

Incorrect. What he's proposing and what Marx/Engels proposed was a shift in personal value. What you're describing is a situation with orthogonal goals. One reinvesting their own talents into society is taken as a pride in and of itself. The degree to which one contributes to society (Through talent) is the inherent benefit of the situation. You're applying a capitalist rubric to a communist thought experiment.

 

[withoutaface]

Incorrect. What he's proposing and what Marx/Engels proposed was a shift in personal value. What you're describing is a situation with orthogonal goals. One reinvesting their own talents into society is taken as a pride in and of itself. The degree to which one contributes to society (Through talent) is the inherent benefit of the situation. You're applying a capitalist rubric to a communist thought experiment.

Capitalist thinking allows for a broad range of personal views without necessarily having them clash with the system (i.e. people can choose to keep their goods, or donate to charity, depending on their preference). He's making assumptions about such shifts occurring, and unless he believes that these views need to be instilled into people by forcible brainwashing (which I'll assume is not the case), then I can't see why he'd not support a move to a free market system where private property is still recognised (given, in his future, people would forfeit such rights voluntarily).

In essence, we should join in with our comrade in the battles against the three big rent seekers in Australia (i.e. unions, farmers and big business).

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Capitalist thinking allows for a broad range of personal views without necessarily having them clash with the system (i.e. people can choose to keep their goods, or donate to charity, depending on their preference). He's making assumptions about such shifts occurring, and unless he believes that these views need to be instilled into people by forcible brainwashing (which I'll assume is not the case), then I can't see why he'd not support a move to a free market system where private property is still recognised (given, in his future, people would forfeit such rights voluntarily).

It's more of a softly, softly approach to proletariat enlightenment.

I think the dichotomy you've drawn is that people cannot choose to donate them to the masses to be redistributed effectively (One cannot take a bale of wool and have it used efficiently in a directed system that is controlled by invididuals as they could in a capitalist society).

Also I think you're drawing a false dichotomy between the forfeiture of rights and ascribing value to property one happens to own.

I think the direct outcome is that in a capitalist society one can only seek to attain, socially, the collectively accepted value of their goods (either through charity or through trade). Though, I have disagreed with the overall nullification of value in goods; as I've outlined in previous rebuttals.

I don't consider a purely capitalistic society to be inherently coercive or exploitative. But that's my own opinion. Zeitgeist, our man, is describing a communist thought experiment, and is attempting to raise overall consciousness through it. It's admirable if not somewhat futile.

 

[zstar]

socalism. that answer to all things evil.

Socialism is a cancer.

Summary: Capitalism is a slutty lady that traps the worker into subservience.

Then go to Cuba or N Korea you whiney Commie, Seriously if you hate it so much then go move to your "heaven on earth". There's plenty of migrants who would kill themselves to enter this country so you will not be missed.

Did you pay attention when you read it Zstar?

Yeah and it's a load of crap because you go on about nothing.

More the reason why the poor/middle class should desire the profitsfrom owning the means of production to go to them instead of the top 1%or so of wealth?

So why should you own something somebody else worked hard for? What right do you have or Marxist to take somebodies elses labour? What gives you the right to use force on somebodies own business?

You can have more. If you work harder under communism you will receivegreater reward... It's just that you can't make profits off controllingthe means of production.

Yes a nice comfy floor bed in a nice comfy gulag

And communism doesn't mind...

Are you being sarcastic or has all that Marxism messed with your head?

All capitalist ideology also involves the use of force otherwise itcannot work? Coercion seems to be the mark of 'the state'... perhapsanarchism might be a solution but I find it very lacking as there aremany other ways to utilise your power than through the state.

Some laws and regulations need to passed in order to stabilise the markets however ideally in a true Republic the government would be very limited, This is the opposite to Marxism where everything is managed through the state. Government should be cut to just a handful institutions.

Fidel Castro's cuba is actually doing decently well despite the heavy sanctions on it. It has great healthcare and education.

Oh yes the old castro argument that you leftists use all the time, Take a look how great the facilities of Cuba's medical instutitutes are. They're run down and unable to provide the appropriate medicine neccesary, Who goes to Cuba for medicine? Who do people turn to for medicine? Do people turn to Cuba?

You tout Cuba's education as great but who leads the Sciences today? Which nations do you see are competitive and the most innovative? Who designed your computer, your router, your switches, your Straight through cables?

Stalin's industrialisation of the USSR (while something I wouldn'tnecessarily advocate for because the toll it took on the citizenry isso great), did actually help prepare the soviet's for war againstGermany much better than they otherwise would have and also laid thefoundations for the russian industrial economy.

Stalin did more harm than good, He purged his generals and decimated the officer corps and ignored intellgence about impeding Axis buildup and as a result of his ignorance cost millions of unneccesary casualties. Furthermore Hitler went to war against the USSR because he feared the Communists and thus was able to justify his aggression.

Vietnam is an extremely prosperous modern nation.

Also, look at the SEA tigers... they all employed far moreprotectionist/socialist economic policies and that's how they builtthemselves up. In fact, there's a decent argument that pretty muchevery developed nation did so on the back of the sort of stronggovernment protectionism that communism calls for.

I think communism in a sense is alive and well all around the world.

Vietnam is prosperous? I don't think so.

The reasons why Vietnam, Singapore and the rest of the tigers have a great and robust economy is because they implemented market reform.

That means no Welfare, low taxes and minimal state interventionism. They don't even have socialized medicine.

Prosperity comes from productivity, From factories and industries running. It comes from interntional trade. Every industrialized nation you see today had at one point repressive work conditions but as the middle class grew they demanded better work conditions and better pay so eventually everything followed and trickled down from there.

I agree, it has failed... But you know what else has failed? The freemarket capitalist experiment. Look over at the US right now, how manymulti-billion dollar companies is the government taking over to lookafter the population? Isn't that a market failure? It seems to me thatwhat we have is a little bit of communism there to correct a problemwith the market.

So capitalism needs a bit of communism sometimes and communism needs abit of capitalism sometimes. I don't think there has even been any realattempts at total free market capitalism or anything on a comparablescale to the statism of the USSR so we don't see any huge nation-scalefailures.

Yes exactly the government is giving socialism to the rich instead of letting the market take care of itself. The U.S government is implementing corporate welfare something in direct violation of market principles. By intervening they are making the situation worse and worse and creating more debt, The money they create comes from nowhere and is non-existent. America's problems come from the unconsitutional Federal Reserve which creates money out of thin air. Libetarians and many Paleoconservatives have for many decades demanded that it be abolished and the treaties signed in 1913 become null and void.

A failed business should be allowed to collapse. They don't have a right to use taxpayer money to give to those private corporations for failed business strategies. Thus it is a form of Socialism. Either you let the market take care of itself or you don't there's no middle way.

BTW the Neo Cons are all ex-Trotskyists and their ideology is the opposite of true conservatism.

In the US you have two major parties in a system that discourages 3rdparties.... It's not a total dictatorship and may very well be as gooda democracy as we can get, but it certainly provides many disincentivesfor anyone who wants to effect greater social change.

All nations have less than perfect democracies. In Australia if youwant to become a representative of government in the Labor party youbasically work your way up in workers unions, get selected by higherups and then move on to bigger and better things eventually landingyourself in parliament. This isn't that different from how democracyoften worked in the USSR, except obviously people vote them in... ormaybe they just vote for one of the two parties? Idk.

Either way, this doesn't demolish the ideas of communism any more thana critique of some aspects of capitalist nations demolishes capitalism.

I hate democracy because it's nothing more than tyranncy of the majority in fact if you have ever read America's Constitution you realise that they never mention democracy even once.

There is a distinction between democracy and a republic. A republic is people electing representitives who represent their interests whereas a democracy is the majority screwing the minority. That's another issue however.

 

[bigboyjames]

Capitalism, itself, is a child of the same 19th century ideology as evolution.

The theory of self sufficiency. As nietzshe put it 'God is dead and we have killed him' in that there was no need for divinity anymore. There was only the self, the individual and a struggle, a struggle for survival.

Herein was where capitalism was born. You take a bit of Nietzsche, add a bit of darwinism and some materialism and you have it.
When Nietzshe uttered his most famous words, atheism was on an upward rise, Darwin was teaching the world that we are in a constant struggle and europe had just seen the rise and fall of Napolean.

At this point, materialism became the religion of all. War was now economical between the powers of Europe and as Darwin put it, there was no need to worry for others as long as the self was safe.

And here lies the crux of this theory. That it elevates the self to the ultimate because without divinity there was no need to care for others.

Capitalism as the 'least worst' or 'most practical' option is a myth. And it's sad that it has fostered and killed contrary notions in the mainstream long enough for people to believe it. Don't believe it, please.

 

[Graney]

Capitalism is the leading cause of environmental devastation. The market is not sufficent to limit production and consumption to sustainable levels, serious government intervention is needed if civilisation is to continue.

 

[zstar]

Capitalism is the leading cause of environmental devastation. The market is not sufficent to limit production and consumption to sustainable levels, serious government intervention is needed if civilisation is to continue.

Firstly Bob Brown and Al Gore are not scientists.

Secondly that statement is completely wrong. Now we have new technologies and cleaner technologies. I remind you it wasn't all that long ago that cars and factories were blowing smog all over the sky but eventually this lead to cleaner more efficient technologies.

Now they're talking about zero emissions cars and even China now is starting to use clean renewable energy as the market as grown for it.

 

[Graney]

Firstly Bob Brown and Al Gore are not scientists.

I'm not the hardcore greenie you've mistaken me for by any means. I'm mainly concerned with sustainability, which is by no means a radical concern, it's acknowledged as a problem by every sane individual, from science to business. I have little faith in the optomistic predictions of some in business that the market and new technologies can effectively manage the emerging environmental crisis. It's ignoring the elephant in the room, and trying to perpetuate the lie that we'll be able to continue, business as usual forever.

We need to work out a way to live with a much smaller footprint on the earth, the world can't sustain perpetual growth with diminishing viable land, water, oil etc...

I'm generally libertarian, but I'm not sure if that philosophy can be entirely compatible with environmental sustainability. It would only work if you could educate people, and you could convince them that it is to their benefit to live smaller, and redefine their values about what is important in life. A complete political and philosophical shift in mindset. Expecting bogans to behave in such an intelligent and farsighted way is probablly unrealistic.

The necessary changes to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st century are probablly easier met with some government intervention.

Secondly that statement is completely wrong. Now we have new technologies and cleaner technologies.

There is no possible way technology will allow the explotation of Australia's water and land at current levels forever (among many other global examples). Using less is the only way.

I remind you it wasn't all that long ago that cars and factories were blowing smog all over the sky but eventually this lead to cleaner more efficient technologies.

Smog is still a problem in many parts of the world. Smog is largely a cosmetic problem, anyway. There are more converning real problems.

Now they're talking about zero emissions cars and even China now is starting to use clean renewable energy as the market as grown for it.

No one is talking about zero emissions cars. The production of a car will always produce a large amount of emissions and consume bulk resources. Electric cars merely shift emissions from the highways to the power stations. Out of sight, out of mind.
Building millions of electric cars to replace millions of fossil fuel driven cars isn't addressing the real problem, that it's simply impossible for the way we've been living in the west to continue forever.

China is only trying to build cleaner technology because their country is extremely fucked up and getting worse.

 

[Graney]

How does technology put more water in the murray-darling, without reducing farmers crop yields? Answer me that!

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Let me begin by saying that I appreciate your taking of this debate seriously (unlike others). As such I will try to answer your thoughts and criticism to the best of my ability.

Couple of quick points, read through the manifesto and grabbed Das Kapital off dad's bookshelf, hoeing through that in between assorted Uni assignments.

1. Your thoughts and points you bring up below do not seem to correspond to the reading material you cite here. I'm not claiming you have not and are not reading that which you claimed, but rather am lost as to how your points correspond to those texts.

2. I would not recommend reading Capital as an "introductory" text. I have provided a reading list on the previous page which I recommend to all wanting a quick but (relatively) thorough overview of the thought of Marx. Of course if you want to read Capital do by all means, though I'm not sure how far you will get considering the first three chapters are incredibly tedious in which most put down the book during this period.

1. Change in mentality of the proletariat, as in a paradigm shift in self realisation, as a thought experiment is an interesting concept. As far as I'm aware Marx and others didn't address the issue as anything other than a whole population paradigm shift in thought. Unless what is directly implied is that small pockets work towards this position and it is attractive to others who join in.

I'm not 100% sure what you are saying here.

What is the “paradigm shift” you are referring to?

What of “self-realisation”?

From the latter part of your comment here (if I am interpreting it correctly, I hope this is relevant), Marx and (the majority of) Marxists have subsequently understood the proletarian revolution and the subsequent mode of production as being international. The notion of small, isolated communes operating a communist mode of production is an idea more akin to utopian socialism (which has been dead for about 150 years) and more modern, post-left, lifestyle anarchism.

2. Removal of private property could possibly have substantial privacy concerns.

Would you care to elaborate on these supposed “privacy concerns”. I'm not sure if this is relevant, but I believe you are failing to take into account the difference between “private property” and “personal property” made my Marxists. By “private property” what is really mean is private ownership of the means of production. A better term for this may be “productive property” (a term I have been using in this thread so as to avoid confusion). “Personal property” on the other hand refers to articles of consumption which the individual owns and uses (ie. a mobile phone, a television, an article of clothing, a loaf of bread or even a car.)

Unless this is purely fundamentalist and all of one's actions are considered to be of benefit to the populous.

Once again, I do not understand your terminology. What is meant by “fundamentalist”?

Further, what does having “all of one's actions are considered to be of benefit to the populous” have to do with “privacy concerns” re collective property.

How does one effectively translate between a society that ascribes intrinsic value and rights to property and one that does not?

Once again I am 100% uncertain of what you are saying here. What do you mean by “translate”?

The proletariat know no property, that is to say, they are propertyless and as such as forced to labour in order to produce and reproduce their own life. Property rights and value are fundamentally bourgeois notions which correspond to bourgeoisie and capitalist society and not to the proletariat and communist society. We see this manifested in everyday life in the struggles of the proletariat. Through their experience of work and wage labour they are pushed to act as a class in a collective struggle which finds expression in the form of unions, but more acutely in revolutionary organs such as “societs”, workers councils and factory committees.

4. Dealing with social anomalies; whilst the information regarding specialised transfers of information (The doctor example) is one in which all can attempt the system and it works out to somewhat of a meritocracy

Am I just dumb or something? I couldn't make any sense of this. Could you please clarify.

how does the system deal with those who cannot produce or be productive?

There needs will be met with those articles of consumption and services necessary. Note in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx's response to point 3 of the Gotha Programme (my emphasis added):

3. "The emancipation of labor demands the promotion of the instruments of labor to the common property of society and the co-operative regulation of the total labor, with a fair distribution of the proceeds of labor.​

"Promotion of the instruments of labor to the common property" ought obviously to read their "conversion into the common property"; but this is only passing.
What are the "proceeds of labor"? The product of labor, or its value? And in the latter case, is it the total value of the product, or only that part of the value which labor has newly added to the value of the means of production consumed?
"Proceeds of labor" is a loose notion which Lassalle has put in the place of definite economic conceptions.
What is "a fair distribution"?
Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?
To understand what is implied in this connection by the phrase "fair distribution", we must take the first paragraph and this one together. The latter presupposes a society wherein the instruments of labor are common property and the total labor is co-operatively regulated, and from the first paragraph we learn that "the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society."
"To all members of society"? To those who do not work as well? What remains then of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor? Only to those members of society who work? What remains then of the "equal right" of all members of society?
But "all members of society" and "equal right" are obviously mere phrases. The kernel consists in this, that in this communist society every worker must receive the "undiminished" Lassallean "proceeds of labor".
Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.
From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.
These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.
There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.
Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.
Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion -- namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.
The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.
Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.
Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.​

5. Store of currency and equality of labour, admittedly this comes down to LTV and modern theories of value-add, but there is criticism to be made of the equivalence of all fruits of labour (At least, as far as my interpretation is going). Not addressing this on the grounds of paying someone more or increasing rewards, but rather overall project length (building a bridge versus managing paperwork).

I believe I am meant to take this as a comment (despite the fact that you don't say much)

The concept of 'unemployment' seems to not exist.

In Marx's critique of political economy that is? If this is so it is certainly not the case. Marx on numerous occasions discussed the cycles of employment and unemployment and made use of concepts such as the “Reserve Army of the Labour”.

6. Scarcity seems to play a minimal part

In what sense do you mean a “minimal part”. Communism is (as far as is possible within given earthly restrains) post-scarcity. Marx notes that communism can not be birthed on feudal or slave modes of production as this would merely lead to the “generalisation of want” and the forcing of society to sink back into “all the old muck”. As such capitalism can be seen as progressive in so far as it allowed for the development of the means of production to a level which could act as the foundation for communist relations of production.

when it comes to the goods that are produced from scarce resources are they directed towards items which provide greatest utility for the greatest number of people in the society, or are they divided equally so that social members can do what they please (within the framwork of giving back to society).

Remembering that communist distribution is by principle “equal”, but rather based of “need”, there is no reason to assume that a physically scarce resource such as gold or oil other precious metals or minerals or what ever else you like would be distributed “equally”. As to how these should be dealt with the decision would lie in the directly-democratic councils, communes and committees who's task would be to plan production of “use-values” (as opposed to “exchange values”) for the fulfilment of human need.

These are the main issues/questions that I've identified thus far.

I have tried to answer these to the best of my ability and I apologise for the limitation in my understanding of the points you were trying to make. If I have done so unsatisfactory I would appreciate your clarification.

 

[zstar]

How does technology put more water in themurray-darling, without reducing farmers crop yields? Answer methat!

The market will sort that out.


If there is demand then desalination plants will be built using sea water.

We need to work out a way to live with a much smaller footprint on theearth, the world can't sustain perpetual growth with diminishing viableland, water, oil etc...

Again you are using Socialist speak by demanding people act a cetain way without considering their own welfare as a consequence of your demands.

There is no possible way technology will allow the explotation ofAustralia's water and land at current levels forever (among many otherglobal examples). Using less is the only way.

That's something people should decide for themselves, If you want to educate them then that they will use less and in fact statistics show Australians are using less water and becoming more environmentally conscious and all this was achieved without using force. The responsibility lies with individuals not with the government.

Smog is still a problem in many parts of the world. Smog is largely acosmetic problem, anyway. There are more converning real problems.

Well I am just using that as an example but it can be applied to any form of environmental pollution.

No one is talking about zero emissions cars. The production of a carwill always produce a large amount of emissions and consume bulkresources. Electric cars merely shift emissions from the highways tothe power stations. Out of sight, out of mind.
Building millions of electric cars to replace millions of fossil fueldriven cars isn't addressing the real problem, that it's simplyimpossible for the way we've been living in the west to continueforever.

First of all I don't believe in man made global warming.

Second of all factories given a certain amount of time will emit less.

Once again you use this "we in the west" speak. You cannot force me to live a certain way that doesn't infringe your rights just as I can force you to live a way that I want you to.

We can give our opinions and decide whether those opinions are valid or not but WE cannot impose it on each other.

 

[untouchablecuz]

First of all I don't believe in man made global warming.

............................................______ __
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................” :,
.....................,?........................... ...........................\,
.................../.................................................. .........,}
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}
.............../.................................................. .,:”........./
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`. ......._/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`... ..}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|........... ...`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,.............. .............`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\........ ..._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Thank you for your criticism of the article, I find many of them to be valid but I do have sum responses.

As an aside that is without a doubt the most horrifically grotesque logical fallacy I've seen in years. Non-Sequitur, ad hominem and a gigantic straw man to top it off.

I'm sorry but I don't see it. Would you care to draw it out a little more clearly for me as I thought it to be a rather humorous way of putting it.

Performing a mathematical operation of setting the value of property to zero does not remove the instinctual value people ascribe to possessing it, even fleetingly. To be a bit of a dick for a moment, having all items be equally worthless does not reduce the value of a treatment of antibiotics to a dying man.

Of course not. Despite assuming an social abundance in the availability of articles of consumption "use-values" attached to these individual goods and services still exists and always exists. I fail to see the point you are making.

Situations ascribe value to items which diminishes the overall notion of items as being valueless and property as being theft.

Situations ascribe use-value to items. What you fail to do is make the distinction between exchange and use value.

The lack of moral absolutes does not in and of itself provide a framework for communism. Situations define morality, morality does not define situations.

Correct. However, I do not understand what your point is here? What bearing does this have on the excerpt quoted?

I assume this is the core of your argument and I cite 'the selfish gene' to combat it. Our want to propagate our genetic data is so great that we will attempt almost anything to perpetuate our own genetic code. Property ownership within our society is a means of doing so, and thus the communist argument assuages this particular item, but I do not feel that it overall combats the very straightforward nature of darwinian evolution and genetic progression.

Ok, lets get something straight. The notion of the "selfish gene" in no way contrary to my argument or the possibility of communism. Humans, like all living things are "self-interested", that is their immediate interest is always is the preservation of their own life or the life of it's genetic relatives. However this is not a barrier in anyway to communism.

How humans act of this interest for self-preservation differs based on the circumstance in which they find themselves. For example within capitalist relations workers find it in their self-interest to act collectively as will be the case in a communist mode of production. Communism is not about self-sacrifice for the collective, it is the freedom and fulfilment of the individual in accordance with the collectivity of property of its corresponding relations of production.

It's somewhat absurdly utopian to assume that all individuals will exchange the currency of today for the labour of love.

Why is this claim absurd? Are you suggesting that the proletariat have interest in the perpetuation of the system wage labour and commodity production?

You must admit this has more than a slight tinge of utopian nonsense.

All discussions on the workability of communism quickly degenerate into such. This is exactly why Marx and all Marxists disdain the debate. We do not construct abstract moral utopias and try to replicate them in the "real world". Rather we proceed from the real world, from the material. We acknowledge the existence of the class struggle and understand this struggle as tended toward the transcendence of capitalist relations and the victory of the proletariat. The form in which this takes place we are not concerned with initially, rather it is the bourgeois critiques that are desperate for detail images of the daily life in a communist mode of production and other such nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

I know what Post hoc ergo propter hoc means thank you, and this is not an example of it. The state exists to reconcile the class antagonisms of society. In modern capitalist society religion is an expression of man's alienation but is also an avenue for capital accumulation and the molding of human behavior in a manner favourable to capitalist production and it's continuity.

Now unless you wish to throw the entire concept of causality out the window you would not attempt such a weak criticism. Could I not equally argue against the theory of evolution by asserting that genetic mutations and a resultant alteration in the characteristics of a living things are in fact not causal but merely correlatory?

'wat'

I take it you do not understand the point made? It is quite simple. Let us assume (even if we are to argue otherwise) that man is naturally egotistic and self-interested (whether in the preservation of the individual or in its genes) it makes perfect sense for the working class to act collectively as the self-interest of the individual worker can only be met with collective action. Take this example, whilst the individual worker has very little bargaining power, the entire workforce of the factory in which he works, or (in the case of a general strike), the entire working population of a defined geographic area, collectively, has an immensely greater bargaining power.

What if one's ability to express freedom, say, by destroying items, causes others to lose that freedom?

Your hypothetical is unrealistic and thus irrelevant. Why would one want to destroy items as opposed to derive a greater utility from them? Even if one did want to destroy items and gained utility from such an activity this in no way impinges upon the freedom of others any more than their destruction in the activity of consumption and as such their is no objective difference in the two activities.

We have the ability to change societal roles but there is a substantial social and economic cost attached.

Hence why such a change is impossible assuming capitalist economic relations.

I'll read the rest of them but I hope to the FSM they're not as poorly written.

Don't get your hopes up, the ICC is infamous for such. Also I would not suggest reading the others unless you are really wish to do so, as I only posted that particular article as it was convenient and not based on its validity or strength of argument.

 

[Graney]

If there is demand then desalination plants will be built using sea water.

Just no. You can't supply the crops of the murray-darling system using desalinated water.

First of all I don't believe in man made global warming..

I didn't mention anything about global warming. The global biodiversity crises is the biggest concern imo.

Once again you use this "we in the west" speak. You cannot force me to live a certain way that doesn't infringe your rights just as I can force you to live a way that I want you to...

Mabye it would be better for the longterm survival of the planet if we did compromise individual liberty in some ways though.

To put it as a libertarian arguement- are we not infringing the liberties of future generations who deserve to grow up in a sustainable, clean, safe world?

What if, by compromising on some liberties allowing uncontrolled consumption now, we ensure the liberty of future generations to live in a safe healthy world with enough food, water and sustainable energy? Isn't it unfair for one generation to be able to despoil the planet to the ruin of all others?

We can give our opinions and decide whether those opinions are valid or not but WE cannot impose it on each other.

I'm pretty sure the government, sufficiently legally empowered, can and does constantly impose it's will on the population.

In anything but a purely anarchist system, someone is imposing their opinions on you.