Socialism and the Human Experience

[Weezer]

My faith in socialism isn't what it used to be.

My main concerns aren't about how the revolution will happen, whether Trotsky is better than Stalin, or how the transition from the dictatorship of the proletariat to communism will occur.

My main concern is this, and as far as I know, only one other person besides me has ever brought this up, and that was on another forum.

Basically: Socialism/communism is achieved. No more class struggle.

Isn't the struggle what makes life fun? Exciting? If we win and reach our ultimate goal: now what? Do we reenact battles of the revolution for fun?

Struggle, I feel, should be a part of everyone's life, at least for part of their life. It's just part of the human experience, I feel.

So after we gain our ultimate goal: now what? Do we just live happy struggle-free lives? Will life still be exciting?

[Decommissioner]

I don't know about you, but I don't find stuggling fun. I struggle to pay may bills and keep myself fed.

What sounds fun to me is being about to fulfill my dreams. Cooperating with friends to start a music space, or taking part of something big. Getting a free college education, being able to afford basic dental care (my teeth have been rotting out of my head ever since my insurance was canceled).

The human spirit is bound and gagged under capitalism. Humanity hasn't and will not reach their full potential as long as capitalism is around. I look forward to a socialist future where we seriously consider the prospect of going to the stars. I look forward to a future where I have free time..real free time, to spend doing something I love, and when I do labor I actually have some sort of say (in a democratic way) of how my workplace is run.

I think the idea struggle making life exciting is purely romantic and nothing else. Those who get a thrill out of struggle aren't really struggling.

[tfb]

You can struggle in sports and videogames, struggle to understand complicated things, to do hard things, etc. You'll still have girl/boy troubles, you'll get colds, you'll stub your toe, there'll still be winter, you'll burn a cake by accident...

[Veovis]

Whoever said that struggle was exciting was thinking of the kind that when you lose, all you suffer is mild disappointment, not eviction and starvation.

[Marxaveli]

This thread = epic fail.

[Weezer]

This thread = epic fail.

How constructive.

[La Peur Rouge]

Why?

Once class struggle isn't necessary think about the time you'll have to focus on your individual struggles, the challenges you face throughout life. The struggle to make yourself a better person, to learn more, to achieve some personal goal.

[Marxaveli]

The very premise of what you brought up undermines being a Socialist. So, by your reasoning, we should keep the capitalist system. Since by that same reasoning, struggling to end things like war, racism, class division and poverty, apathy, and the like is what defines our existence, and to end it would thus be to defeat the purpose of life itself. Am I correct? And you call yourself a Socialist? You have some serious soul searching to do I think, before you can call yourself as such.

That constructive enough for ya?

[Weezer]

The very premise of what you brought up undermines being a Socialist. So, by your reasoning, we should keep the capitalist system. Since by that same reasoning, struggling to end things like war, racism, class division and poverty, apathy, and the like is what defines our existence, and to end it would thus be to defeat the purpose of life itself. Am I correct? And you call yourself a Socialist? You have some serious soul searching to do I think, before you can call yourself as such.

That constructive enough for ya?

Don't be preachy.

I'm not suggesting to keep any of those institutions, and I admit my first post was, for a lack of better words, poorly worded. It was a question. And obviously that wasn't good enough for you.

[Marxaveli]

Very well. And to answer your question, yes, life would be very exciting and much more enjoyable under socialism. Instead of selling your labor to some parasite who reaps almost all the benefits, but to which you have no choice to do as your survival depends on it, you will have much more time to be able to travel, read, go to school for its original purpose (to learn) rather than use it as a means to an end, and in general do the things you enjoy the most. Science, technology, health, and intellect would all reach new levels. And when you do labor, it will be done for the sake of itself and most likely be something you love doing (so long as its within your ability, not all of us can be engineers or brain surgeons).

[roy]

Building a communist society would be a struggle in itself. Careful planning, organisation and labour would be required. There would be the need to combat reactionaries, too.

Once a communist society became established, you'd have more freedom to do as you please, which is inherently fun.

A lot of people say, "You guys only call yourselves communists to be rebels". I hate to be a douchebag, but you validate that accusation here a little bit.

What to do for fun post-revolution is the least of the Left's worries.

[the Leftâ„¢]

Well I think that communism is not necessarily the "End" of historical struggle and progress, its just an improvement. There will no doubt be debates and arguments to be had even in a society without class hierarchy etc. But I dont think struggle is particularly fun, i mean half the time when I think about capitalism I get all emo

[Marxaveli]

I think one problem that could arise, is that now that all have the ownership to means of production, conflict might arise on who does what. This of course would be determined by ability. As I said before, not all of us has the ability to be brain surgeons. And as much as I'm against class division and inequality, I think there are a few jobs such as that which should have somewhat more of a reward, since it requires such a high skill level to perform. Or jobs which involve dangerous circumstances (like construction). Now, I know what you guys are thinking, "but that will create class divisions if some people get more than others and we're back to square one!" Not exactly. A janitor will still have as much power over his labor as a doctor would his, but the doctor should get some additional compensation because of the skill that is required to perform his labor. All in all, both a janitor and a doctor would be well off under Socialism. The janitor may get less initially, but he would easily have the ability to raise his skill level through a free educational system, and thus the training and experience he would receive would up his skill level so that he could do something which required more skill in labor. Basically this would make society a true meritocracy would it not?

[ZeroNowhere]

There would always be Revleft, good sir.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Isn't the struggle what makes life fun? Exciting? If we win and reach our ultimate goal: now what? Do we reenact battles of the revolution for fun?

Struggle, I feel, should be a part of everyone's life, at least for part of their life. It's just part of the human experience, I feel.

So after we gain our ultimate goal: now what? Do we just live happy struggle-free lives? Will life still be exciting? What makes you think ending the class struggle is the end of personal struggle? There are enough challenges in life without class oppression, racism, war, environmental destruction, poverty, starvation, and the like.

I think, actually, yeah, most people would find life more fun without these kinds of struggles. Rather than struggling just to barely survive, people would struggle to develop themselves, solve practical or more abstract problems.

I know someone who is an artist and opposes funding for artists and so on because he thinks that it's the struggle to make a living that makes passionate art. If that were true, there'd be no art ever in society since art is generally the result of social surplus and there being room in society for people who can produce things with a use that's more abstract and not concrete. If it took struggle for survival in the past for art to be created, there'd be no Renaissance, because artists back then were under patrons, not individually creating art and then trying to sell it later as is done now.

It's true for all things in society, if people are freed from the daily grind and the social alienation that makes people internalize a belief in their own worthlessness or inability to run their own lives, then more people could develop themselves and their skills to spend their time working and struggling on the things that are important to them. People could CHOOSE where to put their efforts and where to struggle, rather than having it imposed on them based on conditions of the world and the class organization of society.

[NewSocialist]

I'm struggling to understand your point....

[GPDP]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzqW0YaN2ho

Skip to 1:15. Picard says it quite well.

[Buttress]

I think one problem that could arise, is that now that all have the ownership to means of production, conflict might arise on who does what. This of course would be determined by ability. As I said before, not all of us has the ability to be brain surgeons. And as much as I'm against class division and inequality, I think there are a few jobs such as that which should have somewhat more of a reward, since it requires such a high skill level to perform. Or jobs which involve dangerous circumstances (like construction). Now, I know what you guys are thinking, "but that will create class divisions if some people get more than others and we're back to square one!" Not exactly. A janitor will still have as much power over his labor as a doctor would his, but the doctor should get some additional compensation because of the skill that is required to perform his labor. All in all, both a janitor and a doctor would be well off under Socialism. The janitor may get less initially, but he would easily have the ability to raise his skill level through a free educational system, and thus the training and experience he would receive would up his skill level so that he could do something which required more skill in labor. Basically this would make society a true meritocracy would it not?

I think we'd need to be careful of this kind of thinking. Certain jobs may require more "skill" but jobs under Communism could be shared and rotated, meaning a surgeon may not always do surgery, for example. However we could make more difficult/dangerous or undesirable jobs more attractive by some form of extra incentive.. RedStar2000 discussed the possibility of these jobs giving people higher priorities to certain items (as there will inevitably be waiting lists for some things). They will not get more of these items or exclusive use of them, but rather they will be one of the first to get them.

[Charlie Watt]

My faith in socialism isn't what it used to be.

My main concerns aren't about how the revolution will happen, whether Trotsky is better than Stalin, or how the transition from the dictatorship of the proletariat to communism will occur.

My main concern is this, and as far as I know, only one other person besides me has ever brought this up, and that was on another forum.

Basically: Socialism/communism is achieved. No more class struggle.

Isn't the struggle what makes life fun? Exciting? If we win and reach our ultimate goal: now what? Do we reenact battles of the revolution for fun?

Struggle, I feel, should be a part of everyone's life, at least for part of their life. It's just part of the human experience, I feel.

So after we gain our ultimate goal: now what? Do we just live happy struggle-free lives? Will life still be exciting?

No, struggle is not what makes life fun, it's what makes it shit for so many of us. You're falsely conflating competitive impulses (the desire to take part in sport, martial arts, games (video or otherwise,) and other competitive activity,) and the rip-roaring fun of getting to the last couple of days before your benefits come in, and having to decide whether you and your partner, or the cats get to eat. It's a pure riot, so it is.

[Thirsty Crow]

Struggle, I feel, should be a part of everyone's life, at least for part of their life. It's just part of the human experience, I feel.

So after we gain our ultimate goal: now what? Do we just live happy struggle-free lives? Will life still be exciting?
If struggle should be a part of everyone's life, then so alienation and exploitation should since class war is not something which was thought up as a way to keep people busy and active, for fear of boredom.

And it's completely ridiculous to conflate existential struggle with all of the possible challenges individuals and communites could face in the future. In short, no, all sorts of problems and challenges that we face, individually and as communities, will not just fade away into oblivion, and there wil probably be all sorts of cultural and social mechanisms to ensure the possibilites of exciting lives for all beyond the immediate problems like the danger of a depletion of natural resources.

[Marxaveli]

I think we'd need to be careful of this kind of thinking. Certain jobs may require more "skill" but jobs under Communism could be shared and rotated, meaning a surgeon may not always do surgery, for example. However we could make more difficult/dangerous or undesirable jobs more attractive by some form of extra incentive.. RedStar2000 discussed the possibility of these jobs giving people higher priorities to certain items (as there will inevitably be waiting lists for some things). They will not get more of these items or exclusive use of them, but rather they will be one of the first to get them.

I see what you are saying, but do you really want someone who doesn't have experience performing surgery on you? I don't....

[Bloodwerk]

Personal struggles that make you a better person are what make life fun and challenging.
Today's social struggles make most people miserable. Struggling your entire life to get "educated", get a job, make money, aspire to get a better job, repeat 'till you die.
In my personal opinion, capitalism is whats keeping the human spirit chained.
This may sound cheesy, but I've always believed that money is the downfall of man, and today's world, is all about money.

[Thirsty Crow]

I see what you are saying, but do you really want someone who doesn't have experience performing surgery on you? I don't....
It's ridiculous to assume that people who are not skilled to perform this work would be still allowed to do it. Rather, I think that Buttress raised a valid point - that all of the people skilled to peform surgeries will not be doing only that.

Another problem with your approach is that it practically cancels the possibility of learning. Think about it - if no one would allow someone who is not experienced to perform (parts of) a surgery, then how the hell would upcoming young doctors ever obtain the needed experience?

[Lunatic Concept]

'Socialism, Communism, or whatever one chooses to call it, by converting private property into public wealth, and substituting co-operation for competition, will restore society to its proper condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and insure the material well-being of each member of the community. It will, in fact, give Life its proper basis and its proper environment. But for the full development of Life to its highest mode of perfection, something more is needed. What is needed is Individualism. If the Socialism is Authoritarian; if there are Governments armed with economic power as they are now with political power; if, in a word, we are to have Industrial Tyrannies, then the last state of man will be worse than the first. At present, in consequence of the existence of private property, a great many people are enabled to develop a certain very limited amount of Individualism. They are either under no necessity to work for their living, or are enabled to choose the sphere of activity that is really congenial to them, and gives them pleasure. These are the poets, the philosophers, the men of science, the men of culture – in a word, the real men, the men who have realised themselves, and in whom all Humanity gains a partial realisation. Upon the other hand, there are a great many people who, having no private property of their own, and being always on the brink of sheer starvation, are compelled to do the work of beasts of burden, to do work that is quite uncongenial to them, and to which they are forced by the peremptory, unreasonable, degrading Tyranny of want. These are the poor, and amongst them there is no grace of manner, or charm of speech, or civilisation, or culture, or refinement in pleasures, or joy of life. From their collective force Humanity gains much in material prosperity. But it is only the material result that it gains, and the man who is poor is in himself absolutely of no importance. He is merely the infinitesimal atom of a force that, so far from regarding him, crushes him: indeed, prefers him crushed, as in that case he is far more obedient.'
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/index.htm
So basically Freed from wage slavery we can get down to the interesting stuff, so to speak.

[Marxaveli]

It's ridiculous to assume that people who are not skilled to perform this work would be still allowed to do it. Rather, I think that Buttress raised a valid point - that all of the people skilled to peform surgeries will not be doing only that.

Another problem with your approach is that it practically cancels the possibility of learning. Think about it - if no one would allow someone who is not experienced to perform (parts of) a surgery, then how the hell would upcoming young doctors ever obtain the needed experience?

Thanks for clearing that up. I was misunderstanding what he said.

[Adorno4498]

I find it really funny when people will say that the reason socialism won't work is human boredom.
211 years of exploitation of the proletariat, and all the bourgeoisies can think about is boredom.
Really?
REALLY.

[Adorno4498]

I find it really funny when people will say that the reason socialism won't work is human boredom.
211 years of exploitation of the proletariat, and all the bourgeoisies can think about is boredom.
Really?
REALLY.

[Adorno4498]

(Sorry about the doublepost)

[Rafiq]

Your conception of communism is a Utopian illusion.

Communism, if ever existing will not be static. Communism, like capitalism will be a never ending process.

[Adorno4498]

@Rafiq I think that's one of the problems of the established socialist movement. It sees socialism as the end, when in fact humans will always debate, humans will argue, humans will philosophise, and the existence of class is not required. Socialism does not imply the end of other epochs, just the basis by which they've established themselves upon: social construct, and the antagonisms of strata that follow. By seeing socialism, and by extension, the human experience, this way, a reduction of everything to class and the end of it, the movement itself becomes static and sees theory as requiring a correct interpretation, not an opposition or questioning, and limits itself theoretically, and thus on a protest level, to the confines of the early 20th century.