Capitalism V Communism

Eva7 · June 2006

Heineken Helen wrote:

Just wondering which is REALLY the ideal? I was watching a nice little German film the other night, Goodbye Lenin, which was about an East German boy whose mother went into a coma after suffering a heart attack. While she was in the coma, the wall came down and the whole world changed for them. When she awoke the doctor advised him not to give her too many shocks as it could trigger a fatal attack. So he had to pretend nothing had changed. In one incident she met some West Germans and saw some West German cars and he had to explain how the West Germans had fled to the East cos of their immoral capitalist ways and the East Germans were accepting West German 'refugees' into their homes and she was saying 'we must do everything we can to help', lol. Ok well enough rambling but it just made me wonder what exactly IS so fucking great about the way we're living these days?

wonderful movie! I suggest it to ffg

let's see, what's great.... what about spending four hours of your day in the traffic jam? what about spending 6/7/8.... hours of your day in front of one magic monitor doing something completely useless to the human mind evolution? what about spending other 2/3 hours of your day in front of another magic monitor which talks to you and shows you incredible things like...for exemple the collapse of the wtc? what about taking pills to sleep? what about taking pills to be happy? what about taking pills to make love? what about dying of cancer into a hospital after spending all your life eating things that they told you to be so good, like hormon-meat and pesticide-salad? of course, these are just few of some of the collateral damages required by a wonderful world assuring happyness and freedom to all.....happyness and freedom......happyness and freedom....yeah, the greatest commercial ever designed to daze all.

farfromglorified · June 2006

Eva7 wrote:

let's see, what's great.... what about spending four hours of your day in the traffic jam? what about spending 6/7/8.... hours of your day in front of one magic monitor doing something completely useless to the human mind evolution? what about spending other 2/3 hours of your day in front of another magic monitor which talks to you and shows you incredible things like...for exemple the collapse of the wtc? what about taking pills to sleep? what about taking pills to be happy? what about taking pills to make love? what about dying of cancer into a hospital after spending all your life eating things that they told you to be so good, like hormon-meat and pesticide-salad? of course, these are just few of some of the collateral damages required by a wonderful world assuring happyness and freedom to all.....happyness and freedom......happyness and freedom....yeah, the greatest commercial ever designed to daze all.

Let's see, what's great.....what about working from home and spending time with your family? What about spending 6/7/8....hours of your day in front of one logical monitor doing something that benefits thousands of people who are willing to exchange the products of their minds for the product of yours? what about the choice to not own a television and spending the rest of your day with your family and friends? What about the choice to not be a slave to a state whose actions in part lead to the collapse of the WTC? What about sleeping soundly? What about having the resources and the choice to learn about the foods you eat? Of course, these are just few of the wonderful products of freedom and of the men who hold their own happiness as their highest moral standard.

Love you lots Eva, but it might be time to check your premises.

farfromglorified · June 2006

OutOfBreath wrote:

(edit) preface: I am not advocating communism. I am merely questioning your reasoning. I fundamentally agree actually, if not with your reasoning, then with your conclusion.

Always a bridesmaid, never a bride, eh?

No, not really. He envisions that first of all we stop the fetishism of goods, and scale it all down to what we basically need, and provide that. That really isn't much. But it is an idea of times past, certainly.

One does not stop the "fetishism of goods" by suggesting that every man has a fundamental right to a good simply based on his need of it.

Can man ever be totally free? And is it really desirable? Sounds awfully lonely to me.

That's like suggesting that the prison warden is the world's most popular person....hundreds of friends that never leave.

Total freedom is certainly possible. Freedom is the measure of barriers between man's state and his desired achievement. Remove the barriers that force a man to work against his purpose and that man is free.

You are bent on the need aspect arent you? If we're talking a marginal amount of work that needs to be done to secure the bare basics, covering the needs of your neighbour isn't that much of a task. Why should a man need to start a business? He could rather set out to create what he wants, without having to worry about profitability or anything like that. That this vision also leaves out any technological progress etc, I am aware. But it could be done. Perhaps not now though. And I'm not really advocating it in its full form, just pointing out the brighter sides of it.

Yikes. Here we go. "Why should a man need to start a business? He could rather set out to create what he wants"....what do you think a business is? The creation of something a man does not want???? You suggest such men shouldn't have to worry about profit or "anything like that". How do you propose that man actually create what he wants? Magic? Creation implies resources. You cannot create something out of nothing. Resources imply thought. If your creation requires the thought of others, you "need" those thoughts. How do you propose to get them? Communism's answer is simple: steal them by convincing a man his thoughts are not his own or, more aptly, by force. Capitalism's answer is simpler: profit from the recognition that thought belongs to the thinker .

And those who are not capitalists are irrational, disregarding of reason in general and locked in their faith, is that it?

To a certain extent, yes.

In both cases a larger, missing homogenityis needed. Capitalism on the grand scale you posit requires a larger homogenity in society. Think about it. If you are not to be "locked" to one project (which would make you unfree and perhaps involuntary in the end) you need full interchangability and mobility in that society. For that to remotely work, the right kind of individual traits are needed. As I said, people that society with true-believer anarchists, and it could certainly work. But people arent in general. Which is why I view both poles as untenable.

I don't understand. What is this "one project" you speak of? Why would I be "locked" in it? And why wouldn't I have full interchangability and mobility?

And you would never be the one in need?

Being in need and forcing others to serve those needs are two completely different things. Certainly I've been at need in my life and will be so again. But that gives me the obligation to act, not the right to enslave.

Que? As I outlined earlier on, communism in Marx' sense would be to lock off technological progress and minimize all required down to the bare minimum. How is that consumerist? Consumerism is what we have now.

There are multiple paths to consumerism. The best way, however, to create a population of consumers is to suggest that everyone has a right to a product based only on their need for it. And, ironically, much of the Western world is starting to adopt this as a truth. They villify the men who produce while demanding access to their products. They buy, buy, buy, but never create. The damn profit but say everything it enables is their right.

What is the relationship between the "bare minimum" and consumerism? Nothing. You can consume the bare minimum as much as you can consume the excess.

Perhaps. Providing corporations live by your pure rules.

The corporation is free to try and amass an army. But the purchasing public, unlike a taxed public, is free to withhold that which creates that army.

The most profitable corporations in this world could not afford even the ancillary line-item appropriations of the US military.

In my experience, anarchists of the capitalist persuasion usually are entrepeneurs. Just an observation.

Are you suggesting that my anarchistic/capitalistic persuasions come from my entrepenurial efforts? Try turning that around.

Right to own it? Your mind is your own, and cant be taken away from you. There is no need to own it.

You've just defined ownership.

No, it tells you that you are one mind of many, and that your view doesn't necessarily hold more truth than the next man. Not superfluous, not just necessarily right. And maybe there is objective reality, but can we see it for what it is? We've been down this road.

Yep, and you told me the road doesn't exist.

Who said it was inevitable? Just saying how one shouldn't always consider one's own selfish interests first and foremost.

Ok.

[QUOT]Certainly. But it would be a lot nicer of I told you my mind, and you told me yours. Why should I force you? You seem a bit overdetermined not to let anyone "do you over".[/quote]

A social system can't tell me that it would be nice if I spoke my mind while telling me my mind has no value. That is a contradiction.

Communism fails because it is utopian, and has premises and prerequisites that are unattainable.

Yes, and those premises and prerequisites are found in its philosophy. And those failures extend from those fallacies.

Out of curiosity, what is the difference between socialism and communism as you see it?

Ugh...it's hard to imagine that at one point this was a simple answer.

Socialism is an economic system. Communism is a political movement/system. Both often go hand in hand, but that is not required.

Socialism is the worst one to try to define. Socialism is really just anti-capitalism. It grew out of a distate for markets and private property and capital, rather than growing out of a taste for something specific. Technically, socialism is a system where the economy is directed by a central authority...Marx's "proletariat dictatorship" for example. However, socialism has also been defined outside of the context of an authority which actually produces something much like capitalism except the primacy of need is still in place instead of the primacy of private ownership.

Communism is the political system that emerges from (or creates) a socialist (or at least anti-capitalist) economy. Marx's communism was pretty much a cultural movement disguised as a political system. It was a cultural rejection of social classes and of specialization, replaced by something he never really detailed. The Bolsheviks, however, made a political system out of it and from then on we had the implied quasi-dictatorship associated with the term.

The philosophies of both are practically equal, but the details swing widely because every socialist and every communist has a mind and their own selfish interests

OutOfBreath · June 2006

Hooboy, I'll winnow down the different threads of this. Or else we have the neverending thread on our hands. I'll try at least.

farfromglorified wrote:

Structure of what?

The structure that is the aggregate, yet somewhat qualitatively different result from all the individuals' actions.

Transition from what? The current state? Repeal controls. Not all at once, necessarily. But the entire state structure could probably be removed within a generation at most.

OK. How? And how will it not just lead to state being reaplced by corporations or other which essentially changes nothing for 95% of people, yet would be a revolution to you?

I don't assume "active choice". I advocate active choice. People are welcome to ignore their minds as much as they want and are able to.

How do my theories ignore Norms? Where do you think my own opinions and beliefs come from? They are a product of my culture. These theories allow people to excercise their culture rather than sacrifice it.

And this is a source of confusion. When are you advocating, and when are you just stating? It's not always obvious. Your theories ignore norms, the same way it ignores structure, by having tunnel-vision locked on the individual and his active choices in all things. You dont disallow them, but you dont integrate them in the theory sufficiently.

Why must I take children away from their parents? All children in my world have the same start: their minds and their bodies. All else is the product of the parents, not the product of the child. For example, inherited wealth is a product of the inheritee, not a product of the inheritor. The man who earned it earned the right to do what he pleases with it.

Then it is not meritocracy. Inheritance repeals it, by giving people what they didn't work for, or more than the value of their input if you will. That their parents obtained it in a meritocratic way, doesnt make it meritocracy for them. Hence, if all start the same at square one, by second generation meritocracy is severely flawed, guve it a few more, and it is gone, and replaced with status of birth and privileges. Hence what I said.

Each child is born into a unique environment. Why is this a bad thing? It generates the differences we see in the people we encounter. Some children have more resources and "healthier" environments than others, but why pretend that this should not be or could not be? If you want to raise a generation of clones, this becomes an issue. Otherwise, the only relevancy is what barriers are preventing people from achieving their goals. The system I'm describing is a system where people are free to work towards their own destiny, rather than forced to work against it.

Nothing against different environments, but I am a sucker for equal(er) opportunity for all individuals independant of birth. The barriers will be severaly unequally distributed, and the same effort by different people will not yield equally, as true meritocracy would warrant. Maybe you dont really want full meritocracy. I dont really.

When is the last time the Norweigan government considered their fundamental right to rule you and every other citizen and Norway? The process you describe asks the question: who is fit to rule you, not is anyone fit to rule you.

Well, if "they" stayed the same and consisted of closed groups (often the case in "communist" states btw) then I see the problem. When those in power are moved upon, and answers to the public that elected them, the question is how much do they rule and how much do they just administer? The way and depth of rule is very relevant, even if it can be presented as "rule" in all cases. A formal likeness that has no bearing on experienced practice. The latter is what matters.

They do? I'm not intimately familiar with Norweigan law, but is it objective? Do your laws detail the exact situations requiring the use of guns, or do they provide officers discretion? Can your laws be arrived at via the logic of all, or only the "logic" of those who make them and enforce them?

I've stood at the gate as a guard in the military many times when I was in the force. In Norway police do not even routinely carry guns. As a guard in the military we were drilled on how much it would take for us to even consider loading a bullet into the chamber of the rifle, before considering shooting a warning shot. Laws and military regulations. The logic of these is not to unnecessarily exercise deadly force through very strict rules.

Help me out here man. It's not mine to organize. This isn't a boy scout field trip.

I'm not asking you to organize it. I'm asking you to lift the gaze away from the individual and tell me what you see in society, and how it must be ordered and on what principles for it to work like you want on the individual level.

All men do not need to hold a job to survive. All men need to eat, drink and sleep to survive. Men may seek jobs to help provide those things if they require trade with others. Other men may build communes to provide those things for all, regardless of jobs. Other men may simply provide these things for themselves. What business is it of mine?

Personally, I'd participate in a situation where men use their abilities to excersice their chosen purpose. I'd run a technology business. I'd trade with those who run other businesses. We'd all employ anyone that would wish and be able to help us. Would I give away jobs just because men "need" them? No. If those men are of no value to me, what would I be paying them for?

Okay. And what do they do in between? What do they do when in such a position either by own actions or through structural forces beyond their control (and most structural forces will be beyond their control under anarchy) end up unable to provide for themselves? How would those structures have to look if it was gonna be fairly frictionless, good and fair and unimpeding to the individuals' purposes? You cant just write it off as "people should provide for themselves the way they want", you are allowed to think aloud how you see these things resolve themselves in your utopia.

But the underlying authority of the state extends from force. Certianly there is cooperation as you say in certain instances. But true cooperation is two sides working toward a similar goal, and the opposite of that goal is what they're working against. The proposition of the state is to work towards a bunch of goals, with the opposite of those things always being forceful punishment. The "cooperative" proposition of the state, regardless of purpose, is not "do this or don't achieve this" but rather "do this or get hurt".

In a totalitarian dictatorship, sure. In a democracy it would be to follow the majority's decision or get fined. Difference there. Underlying monopoly of force, certainly. Necessarily an evil thing or worse than other limiting forces in the world, no.

Here's a good example...my business's code of conduct is not gun-to-head. Why? Because a breach of it does not result in me (or any agent of mine) putting a gun to anyone's head. Every person agrees to that code of conduct as a prerequisite for working here. If they don't agree with that code, they can choose not to work here. If they breach it, they are no longer considered a value to me and therefore I no longer pay them. Pretty simple, yes? That is a code of true justice. The "punishment" is simply the logical end of their action.

OK, you have a code. What if businesses end up with similar codes, and those that would work in those businesses didn't want those codes, then what? In a situation where they have to work or starve, and 1)they dont have the option of doing what they want and 2) while working have to conform to codes they dont want in order to keep/get a job. They get punished by you too. Logical end, sure. The logical end to murder is also prison under the state. Murderers know what they get....

You exert power in that way, and that power limits other people. You have the means to sanction, while your employees do not, if we're gonna stay with strict individualism and leave out the possiblity of unions etc. The difference is small in practice.

Certainly! But that's the logic of "make peace with bombs". In the absence of the state, certainly a corporation or some other entity can amass powers of force. But that doesn't make it right to form a mass of power to prevent amassment of power.....

But the democratic state amassment of power can be influenced and controlled. The power amassed by individuals, well, we had the middle ages here in europe where that was the norm. Perfect, not at all. Flawed, you bet. Better, yes.

First, your point about "materialization of all options". No one has an obligation to materialize an option for you. If you require an option and that option is possible but not provided....provide it. You have no right to simply demand it into existence.

Exactly, but ultimate freedom demands ultimately all options. Otherwise new power arises from those who get to define the options made available.

The channels for consumer action are quite numerous. The media, the church, the community as a whole, the Internet.....the only prerequisite is that people pay attention. But that's already a prerequisite to thought and since I'm basing the entire thing off of everyone's ability to think, it's pretty much implied.

But you require the anarchistic population to get it going off the ground. Getting attention is not the same as changing. You do not imply that people think, you imply that people will be forever vigilant and actively choosing and deciding in their every task every day. Noble as it may sound, people arent that conscious actors on the whole. Which is why I say, fine, in a society of dedicated anarchists.

You say that the democratic state is the best way for people "can influence what goes on around them, and they have a channel for venting frustrations and complaints". I call bullshit. The modern democratic state is terribly inefficient and largely ineffectual at this. Perhaps for the Romans, for a while, sure. But not these days.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

You want a society where people are obligated to die in your place, while at the same time giving yourself the obligation to die for them? That seems, well, a bit conflicting. Can you build enough sacrifical alters for the whole lot of you?

What's your hangup with dying in regards to this? I want a society where people are obligated to eachother, yes. That does not mean people should line up and die for eachother or whatever you are on about here, I'm merely saying that people should (in my opinion, and often seen in practice) be ready to act for eachother, help eachother and generally have empathy and caring for eachother. You say "fine, do it on your spare time", where-as I first of all see it as such an integral element of human morality and values, that going around it is nonsense for most people. I dont need anyone to die for me, and noone would need to die for me. But we should have a moral obligation to support and help eachother, yes. Even if it violates selfish interest and thus skews the true capitalism. I am my brother's keeper.

I failed

Peace
Dan

OutOfBreath · June 2006

I will shorten the communist sognificantly though, and refrain from small rebuttals I might feel inclined to. I dont really have that big of a beef with you here, except for a few things

farfromglorified wrote:

Total freedom is certainly possible. Freedom is the measure of barriers between man's state and his desired achievement. Remove the barriers that force a man to work against his purpose and that man is free.

And if the barriers aren't a result of the state, what do you do?

to a certain extent, yes.

I'll try to keep my irrational faith-based initiatives to a minimum.

I don't understand. What is this "one project" you speak of? Why would I be "locked" in it? And why wouldn't I have full interchangability and mobility?

How would you have full interchangability and mobility unless all people in your society were anarchists like yourself? Without that homogenity, alot of people would feel outside your society, oppose it, and try to change it away from your anarchism. Oh I dunno, does this make sense? I am completely unable to formulate the thought behind it. Ignore it.

Being in need and forcing others to serve those needs are two completely different things. Certainly I've been at need in my life and will be so again. But that gives me the obligation to act, not the right to enslave.

Bravo. That's what is asked of you. To expect that your fellow man will help you, is not to enslave him, as he may very well prove to not meet your expectations. But a shared expectation, and an inclination to act on it yourself, in the spirit of reciprocity and idealism, makes for a better, warmer society.

The corporation is free to try and amass an army. But the purchasing public, unlike a taxed public, is free to withhold that which creates that army.

Until it is taken from them by an army over which they have no influence or say, to serve the purposes of individuals. That is worse than being taxed an amount that also provides you with a lot of insurance and security on top of it. The violent aspect of western states is pretty much curbed, at least in regards to their own population.

The most profitable corporations in this world could not afford even the ancillary line-item appropriations of the US military.

And you wouldn't need to either. Handguns kill just as well as apache choppers. Especially if noone has the choppers anymore.

Are you suggesting that my anarchistic/capitalistic persuasions come from my entrepenurial efforts? Try turning that around.

No, I'm saying that entrepeneurial types draw up the perfect entrepeneur society, where-as cowed and dominated workers draw up the perfect safe-from-adversity society. The leaders want opportunity, the manual bottomline workers want security. Both drives will always exist, and any wandering to any extreme will alienate a large part of the population.

You've just defined ownership.

Then you define ownership far narrower than most, as it would negate ownership of land and most external objects not the result of your own hands.

Yep, and you told me the road doesn't exist.

No I said, are you sure the road looks just like that, coz I dont think I agree.

A social system can't tell me that it would be nice if I spoke my mind while telling me my mind has no value. That is a contradiction.

What social system tells you that? I am not the authorized spokesperson for the opposite system. Sometimes I merely philosophize, and I must be able to do so without you seeing it as an integrated part of the system I seem to be defending. Dont hang yourself up in my philosophical background thoughts when I discuss something else here. I am not your anti-thesis or nemesis, but neither do I agree with your way of seeing things.

Yes, and those premises and prerequisites are found in its philosophy. And those failures extend from those fallacies.

Fair enough. I find it a bit on the harsh side, but ok.

Ugh...it's hard to imagine that at one point this was a simple answer.

Socialism is an economic system. Communism is a political movement/system. Both often go hand in hand, but that is not required.

Funny, I see it the other way around, really. Or rather people calling themselves socialists these days (not to be confused with those of 50 years ago) are talking of it in the way of a movement, not an economic system. It seems your socialism is just another aspect of what I would call communism altogether.

Socialism is the worst one to try to define. Socialism is really just anti-capitalism. It grew out of a distate for markets and private property and capital, rather than growing out of a taste for something specific. Technically, socialism is a system where the economy is directed by a central authority...Marx's "proletariat dictatorship" for example. However, socialism has also been defined outside of the context of an authority which actually produces something much like capitalism except the primacy of need is still in place instead of the primacy of private ownership.

Communism is the political system that emerges from (or creates) a socialist (or at least anti-capitalist) economy. Marx's communism was pretty much a cultural movement disguised as a political system. It was a cultural rejection of social classes and of specialization, replaced by something he never really detailed. The Bolsheviks, however, made a political system out of it and from then on we had the implied quasi-dictatorship associated with the term.

The philosophies of both are practically equal, but the details swing widely because every socialist and every communist has a mind and their own selfish interests

Of course we have our own minds, as do you capitalist pigs.;) The details of your vision varies a lot from person to person too.

But socialists as a term today, is more about indicating a leftish political leaning, where a focus on collective solutions to collective problems and concern is essential. Most socialistic thought needs a sort of redistribution agency to perform these solutions to problems. Just how and what that distribution channel should be is debatable. But to many the socialism is also a reaction against what is seen as materialist, selfish and unhealthy focus on me! and mine!, instead of focusing on how we should organize in a way to facilitate the best comrpomise and solution for all. A strong belief and conviction on behalf of democracy usually goes along with it. I am not completely on board on all things socialism these days, as I am rather a very left-leaning social democrat, but these things appeal to me. Does it jive with capitalist concepts and thought? Probably not. Is it about enslaving people? Certainly not. But in compromises, people must make concessions. It is essential for any society. But we should make as good compromises as possible. Just how this is, who knows. Direct democracy perhaps is proposed, at least on the smaller level. I advocate rather smaller units of democracy. Large democracies is almost an oxymoron as it makes it a lot harder to consider many different people and groups' interests and wishes. The strokes become so broad, and the diversity will so so wide that the standard will poorly fit a huge group of people. If you allow me a statistics term, the standard error becomes too great. The line may be through the centre, but people are anywhere but there. Same formal concepts act out differently with different degrees of magnitude in size.

Actually, we coincide to a certain extent here, only that you want corporations int heir pure good form, where I talk of smaller democratic units. These concepts overlap a lot actually. Even if we cant agree on the rhetoric supporting our different concepts. I want freedom as much as you do, but I want de facto, not formal freedom. You seem to focus more on the formal aspect of it. For me it is irrelevant whether I am working under a "corporation" or a "state", as both structures hold power over me, and forces/facilitates me to act a certain way. I see a lto of freedom coming to life for many through state orderings, initiatives, regulations and taxations that are good. Is it coersion, well maaaayyyybbeeeeee if you wanna be strictly formal and anarchistic about it, but ask yourself exactly what paying a bit of taxes has hindered of your choices and actions in life. If you perceive freedom, that you get rewarded from your initiatives, and lead a life along the lines you would wish, I'd say "What's the problem?". If the problem is of a formal character, I may dismiss it, unless it also have de factoi real tangible consequences for people.

Now dont pick apart this final monologue by me, as it is meant merely to show a bit more what I really mean, instead of me ending up being pegged as your anti-thesis, which I am not. (although I like to argue, obviously

) If you will comment this last, do so generally. You do not need to point out all the ways it is contradictory or senseless from a capitalist perspective. I am aware that I'm not a capitalist, and thus I rest my logic on different premises than you, as is quite evident.

There. See ya tomorrow

Peace
Dan

Heineken Helen · June 2006

Eva7 wrote:

wonderful movie! I suggest it to ffg

let's see, what's great.... what about spending four hours of your day in the traffic jam? what about spending 6/7/8.... hours of your day in front of one magic monitor doing something completely useless to the human mind evolution? what about spending other 2/3 hours of your day in front of another magic monitor which talks to you and shows you incredible things like...for exemple the collapse of the wtc? what about taking pills to sleep? what about taking pills to be happy? what about taking pills to make love? what about dying of cancer into a hospital after spending all your life eating things that they told you to be so good, like hormon-meat and pesticide-salad? of course, these are just few of some of the collateral damages required by a wonderful world assuring happyness and freedom to all.....happyness and freedom......happyness and freedom....yeah, the greatest commercial ever designed to daze all.

I was gonna say 'nicely put' but I don't think 'nice' really sums it up so... well said... unfortunately! Oh you've just made my life feel so pointless

. Well on Monday I'm gonna be a homeowner - I'm getting a tent

And FFG - is there any chance you could do us a favour and watch the film? It's quite funny anyway and ya wouldn't have to be a communist to enjoy it

OutOfBreath · June 2006

Yeah, that's a sweet movie.

Peace
Dan

Puck78 · June 2006

Eva7 wrote:

let's see, what's great.... what about spending four hours of your day in the traffic jam? what about spending 6/7/8.... hours of your day in front of one magic monitor doing something completely useless to the human mind evolution? what about spending other 2/3 hours of your day in front of another magic monitor which talks to you and shows you incredible things like...for exemple the collapse of the wtc? what about taking pills to sleep? what about taking pills to be happy? what about taking pills to make love? what about dying of cancer into a hospital after spending all your life eating things that they told you to be so good, like hormon-meat and pesticide-salad? of course, these are just few of some of the collateral damages required by a wonderful world assuring happyness and freedom to all.....happyness and freedom......happyness and freedom....yeah, the greatest commercial ever designed to daze all.

that's it.

danmac · June 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

Socialism is the worst one to try to define. Socialism is really just anti-capitalism. It grew out of a distate for markets and private property and capital, rather than growing out of a taste for something specific. Technically, socialism is a system where the economy is directed by a central authority...Marx's "proletariat dictatorship" for example. However, socialism has also been defined outside of the context of an authority which actually produces something much like capitalism except the primacy of need is still in place instead of the primacy of private ownership.

Communism is the political system that emerges from (or creates) a socialist (or at least anti-capitalist) economy. Marx's communism was pretty much a cultural movement disguised as a political system. It was a cultural rejection of social classes and of specialization, replaced by something he never really detailed. The Bolsheviks, however, made a political system out of it and from then on we had the implied quasi-dictatorship associated with the term.

:-)

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

How can a clever, well versed bloke like yourself say that a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is directed by a central authority?!?!? Its the complete opposite!

What you are describing is what Stalin turned the Bolshevik Revolution into, not what it started out as in 1917. The Soviets (the original workers councils, not the people of the USSR as so described from 1930's onwards) of Petrograd in 1917 were based on the factories and the greater means of production, were being run by the workers themselves, without the need for ANY central, classically 'state' authority.

However, this was, as it was in Catalonia in 1936 and Paris in 1870, short lasted. The Russian Civil war and Lenin's death, followed by Trotsky's exile saw to this. The adoption of War Communism saw to thsi.

Then the NEP, as envisioned by Lenin and Trotsky (through Marx) but bastardised by Stalin, put an end to all hopes of the Proletariat ever holding the right to self determination through control of the means of production.

I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion above. Then again, you hadn't heard of the term 'State Capitalism' until 2 days ago ;-)

farfromglorified · June 2006

danmac wrote:

How can a clever, well versed bloke like yourself say that a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is directed by a central authority?!?!? Its the complete opposite!

Umm....I can say that because the man who coined the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" said it. Marx viewed the dictatorship of the proletariat as a concrete faction of the state achieved by a proletariat revolution and maintained then by the functions of the state.

If you view it as something different, that's cool.

What you are describing is what Stalin turned the Bolshevik Revolution into, not what it started out as in 1917. The Soviets (the original workers councils, not the people of the USSR as so described from 1930's onwards) of Petrograd in 1917 were based on the factories and the greater means of production, were being run by the workers themselves, without the need for ANY central, classically 'state' authority.

That's fine.

However, this was, as it was in Catalonia in 1936 and Paris in 1870, short lasted. The Russian Civil war and Lenin's death, followed by Trotsky's exile saw to this. The adoption of War Communism saw to thsi.

Sure.

Then the NEP, as envisioned by Lenin and Trotsky (through Marx) but bastardised by Stalin, put an end to all hopes of the Proletariat ever holding the right to self determination through control of the means of production.

And what about the "right to self determination" of the men they stole it from?

I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion above. Then again, you hadn't heard of the term 'State Capitalism' until 2 days ago ;-)

You've been here, what, 10 minutes??? I've certainly heard of State Capitalism my friend. It is a contradiction in terms.

farfromglorified · June 2006

Heineken Helen wrote:

And FFG - is there any chance you could do us a favour and watch the film? It's quite funny anyway and ya wouldn't have to be a communist to enjoy it

Certainly. Now if only I can find a communist to give it to me

Seriously though, I'll definitely check it out.

Heineken Helen · June 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

Certainly. Now if only I can find a communist to give it to me

Seriously though, I'll definitely check it out.

Cool thanks... if ya can! It's a nice little film... in German though so i hope you don't mind subtitles

Eva7 · June 2006

farfromglorified wrote:

Let's see, what's great.....what about working from home and spending time with your family? What about spending 6/7/8....hours of your day in front of one logical monitor doing something that benefits thousands of people who are willing to exchange the products of their minds for the product of yours? what about the choice to not own a television and spending the rest of your day with your family and friends? What about the choice to not be a slave to a state whose actions in part lead to the collapse of the WTC? What about sleeping soundly? What about having the resources and the choice to learn about the foods you eat? Of course, these are just few of the wonderful products of freedom and of the men who hold their own happiness as their highest moral standard.

Love you lots Eva, but it might be time to check your premises.

My dearest! you listed all things I already practise, but how many people you know who do the same, and actually can afford to do the same? I am a lucky bastard!!!! I don't know personally anyone really who can afford to live as I do. Of course, I did my choices, they costed me and still cost me to give up a lot of things that the average people wouldn't give up, but I swear God that there is also a great amount of luck and lucky chances that drove me to achieve this. Please, don't tell me now that anyone is free to do so, because this is not realistic, otherwise we must agree that the majority of the people are suicide masochists, and I would tell you that in fact I consider all this system suicide and masochist.... but if so, the point is... does the system give all the people the tools and the chance to realize how suicide and masochist this all is???

farfromglorified · June 2006

Eva7 wrote:

My dearest! you listed all things I already practise, but how many people you know who do the same, and actually can afford to do the same? I am a lucky bastard!!!! I don't know personally anyone really who can afford to live as I do. Of course, I did my choices, they costed me and still cost me to give up a lot of things that the average people wouldn't give up, but I swear God that there is also a great amount of luck and lucky chances that drove me to achieve this. Please, don't tell me now that anyone is free to do so, because this is not realistic, otherwise we must agree that the majority of the people are suicide masochists, and I would tell you that in fact I consider all this system suicide and masochist.... but if so, the point is... does the system give all the people the tools and the chance to realize how suicide and masochist this all is???

Eva,

One must simply ask the question, "what makes people suicidal and masochistic" to arrive at the answers to your questions. The "system" is teaching people sacrifice their tools, their chances, their lives, their happiness, to their neighbors, their bosses, their states. And the people you speak of sanction it. It is the culture of sacrifice that I attack, and the culture of achievement that I defend.

-Jeff

Commy · September 2010

farfromglorified wrote:

One must simply ask the question, "what makes people suicidal and masochistic" to arrive at the answers to your questions. The "system" is teaching people sacrifice their tools, their chances, their lives, their happiness, to their neighbors, their bosses, their states. And the people you speak of sanction it. It is the culture of sacrifice that I attack, and the culture of achievement that I defend.

-Jeff

you seem to be describing capitalism.

today we work towards a goal- a company or corporation's goal. my labor is insignificant, i can do mediocre labor half heartedly and excel.

if you live in a society where labor is valued, you tend to do your part. capitalism benefits the individual, whatever his output, whereas a collectivist society benefits the whole, which includes most of the population. when you go to work knowing your labor will have a direct impact on how the society functions, a society that values you, your motivation changes. you move from selfish thought to an idea of helping others.....a much stronger motivator. this, with a resource pool that benefits all, produces a society much more in line with human nature.

OutOfBreath · September 2010

Wow, this thread was a blast from the past.

Ah, to get all long-winded about philosophical and existencial topics... *drifts off into reminiscence*

Doubt you'll get a response, commy. Havent seen ffg around too much lately.

Peace
Dan

Commy · September 2010

lol Dan.

worth a shot, he posted the other day.

Capitalism V Communism

Comments

Categories