Communism= Ultra-elitist

[sadangelclown]

"Freedom is not solely about the free conflict of ideas, it first requires creating a society in which people are conscious of freedom and how they can express it. At present they are constrained about what we perceive to be false preconseptions about society, we see bourgeois ideology as ignoring material reality and the ideology as not a real analysis of society and history from an objective view point but rather an analysis created to maintain a system of inequity that benefits certain groups of people."

So basically-- you know what freedom is, and we don't. Hmm. And you're going to force your notion of freedom upon the masses of whichever nation you want; the proletariat does not know what's best for itself, it cannot recognize freedom. The major problem with communism is that the proletariat does know what freedom is-- the freedom to own property and to pursue happiness through consumerism as well as through free expression. You probably aren't aware of the writer Nestor Canclini? He, along with many other Latin American writers, argue that citizenship/cultural identity now is rooted in consumption of the mass media and social groups. Meaning, by consuming say, punk rock, an individual asserts his identity within and against the identity of his collective society. In modern times, human identity is inherently connected to capitalist consumerism. Take away the ability to freely choose products with which to buy and thus assert identity, and humanity will be lost and faceless.
This is not to say that capitalism is without fault; in fact, capitalism on a world scale, i.e. neo-liberal policy, is detrimental to the development of many nations. Capitalism does rely on a working class, without a doubt. But just capitalist societies a) provide equal treatment to all classes and b) allow social mobility based on merit between classes. The United States doesn't meet either of those points entirely at this point, but fufilling the requirements for a just capitalist society is much easier than attempting to transform the very fabric of human identity through communism. Developing nations become the working class for the developed, and as Canclini argues, the have-nots are unable to partake in the globalized economy. Also, because production for developed nations take place in developing states, national identity suffers and the state feels subjugated to the capitalist system as a whole as well as those developed nations that exploit it. The same requirements governing just capitalist rule for a nation apply to the world economy, though, and someday in the far future I expect these ideals will be reached.

[elijahcraig]

Rant anyone? Why wait?

[hazard]

ultra elitist under a new defintion of elite

currently, the "elite" is defined by feudal ties as established a thgousand years ago or so

communism would complete the task of usurping this ancient elite with either a military or intellectual elite

depending on the nature of the revolution, a communist nation would be ruled by either of these two elites

and both are far better suited to rule than the current elite, especially under a communist doctrine

[sadangelclown]

What astounding logic! The elite created by communism is far better suited to communism!

Let's see if a commie can intelligently rebut my post.

[redstar2000]

The major problem with communism is that the proletariat does know what freedom is-- the freedom to own property and to pursue happiness through consumerism as well as through free expression.

Yeah, they're so "happy" that what they "consume" mostly is anti-depressants and marijuana. And their "freedom of expression" is limited to agreeing with Rush Limbaugh.

Sounds really "great".


In modern times, human identity is inherently connected to capitalist consumerism. Take away the ability to freely choose products with which to buy and thus assert identity, and humanity will be lost and faceless.

In plain words: "you are what you buy".

That's a "truly inspiring" vision of the human species.


But just capitalist societies a) provide equal treatment to all classes and b) allow social mobility based on merit between classes.

:lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[hazard]

clown:

you can misread what I have written all you like

that doesnt change the fact that wha I wrote and what you read are two seperate things

your inference is that elitism is wrong, and I agree that the current form of elitism is wrong and the only way to corect this wrong is to impose a new version of it

for in reality none are truly equal. at least communism is an attempt to allow those best suited to rule the ability to do so

[(*]

In modern times, human identity is inherently connected to capitalist consumerism.

I agree with that.


Take away the ability to freely choose products with which to buy and thus assert identity, and humanity will be lost and faceless.

The thing is, I don't believe products(material goods) should define who a person is. I think with people are in fact losing their identity through capitalist consumerism.

In regards to the 2 points about in a just capitalist society. As you pointed out, such a nation does not exist.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 02:04 AM
You probably aren't aware of the writer Nestor Canclini? He, along with many other Latin American writers, argue that citizenship/cultural identity now is rooted in consumption of the mass media and social groups. Meaning, by consuming say, punk rock, an individual asserts his identity within and against the identity of his collective society. In modern times, human identity is inherently connected to capitalist consumerism. Take away the ability to freely choose products with which to buy and thus assert identity, and humanity will be lost and faceless.
This is not to say that capitalism is without fault; in fact, capitalism on a world scale, i.e. neo-liberal policy, is detrimental to the development of many nations. Capitalism does rely on a working class, without a doubt. But just capitalist societies a) provide equal treatment to all classes and b) allow social mobility based on merit between classes. The United States doesn't meet either of those points entirely at this point, but fufilling the requirements for a just capitalist society is much easier than attempting to transform the very fabric of human identity through communism. Developing nations become the working class for the developed, and as Canclini argues, the have-nots are unable to partake in the globalized economy. Also, because production for developed nations take place in developing states, national identity suffers and the state feels subjugated to the capitalist system as a whole as well as those developed nations that exploit it. The same requirements governing just capitalist rule for a nation apply to the world economy, though, and someday in the far future I expect these ideals will be reached.

The major problem with communism is that the proletariat does know what freedom is-- the freedom to own property and to pursue happiness through consumerism as well as through free expression.

That's freedom? Then what about freedom of sexual preferences, freedom of having education, freedom of living, freedom of thought, freedom of attempting to change the world, freedom to ruin our bodies in any way we want, freedom of making people understand our ideas, freedom of gaining access to the government, freedom of protesting, freedom of striking, freedom of going to the bathroom in one's job, freedom of having free health so that we dont have to worry about death and enjoy our life, freedom of having a safe and clean planet, freedom...

I could go on for hours, it's just that you cappies don't understand that there are more freedoms that arent given to most people of this world, and that the freedoms you defend arent such an important thing. Example: you dont need to own property to live in a house, especially if what you do is good for you and doesnt affect on a negative way the other people. You don't need to buy things to be happy and especially if you deserved it because you worked for it (note: capitalists do not really represent this because many people works hard everyday and live in poorness, while others work less and can buy as many discmans as they want).

[sadangelclown]

But such a nation is capable of existing, whereas a communist, non-authoritarian nation is not.

Let's see if you can follow me here:

Human rationality is based on the premise that we are inherently self-interested. Thus, acting rationally entails acting with self-interest in mind, and so the rational action to take under a communist government is to free-ride. Free-ride meaning attempt to extort the government for as many benefits as possible while exerting as little effort as possible. An individual member of a communist society does not make or break the system; thus an individual would have no qualms concerning shirking duties and while still benefiting. The only way to subjugate human rationality is through forceful imposition of a new culture that denigrates individual identity. This is why any lasting socialist/communist regime ends up turning to force-- Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Kim Jong, Mao. In the beginning, they may attempt to be democratic leaders of a "free" people. But they soon recognize the problems inherent in human rationality and use force in an attempt to change the people. Such a radical cultural change is so appalling to modern moral standards that it could never occur in a wide-scale, and so communist regimes rule through short-term fear. This is why many regimes fall after one or two leaders.

[sadangelclown]

"That's freedom? Then what about freedom of sexual preferences, freedom of having education, freedom of living, freedom of thought, freedom of attempting to change the world, freedom to ruin our bodies in any way we want, freedom of making people understand our ideas, freedom of gaining access to the government, freedom of protesting, freedom of striking, freedom of going to the bathroom in one's job, freedom of having free health so that we dont have to worry about death and enjoy our life, freedom of having a safe and clean planet, freedom..."

Many of those freedoms are included in the term consumption, which means not only to BUY, but also freedom of association. Thus, by consuming the culture of say, a labor union, you inherently have the freedom to right. Consumption not only entails the freedom of private property but also freedom of association and expression.

I advocate virtually all of those freedoms.

[Monty Cantsin]

To force a man to be free is a oxymoron, a contradiction “a leader doesn’t make the people the people make the leader”. “I don’t liberate the people the people liberate themselves”. Without popular support no revolution can be successful. Cultural. Armed and peaceful doesn’t matter a communist revolution would need popular support.

So what we buy determines our identity well I think that’s fairly shallow, skin deep. The main problem we consumerism is brand loyalty’s were people will drink coke just because of adds. But that’s not that really what bothers me because in a socialist/communist world people are still going to get needs, wants goods and services. But that is really worrying with the amount of information available people haven’t become more inquisitive they have become more apathetic. Over simplifying things and not really seeing the big picture around them. This is the real danger to democracy and equality.

So what is needed is a awakening of peoples minds a cultural revolution were people care about politics and the world around them.

[hazard]

thats a rather tired and ridiculous argument you got going their clown. its almost laughable.

free-ride? as if the USSR beat the USA in the arms race, the space race and continue to be a tachnologcal and military giant after the cold war based on sheer laziness. oh yeah. and they mantained and defended like a billion mile border at the same time. thats really lazy.

[sadangelclown]

Did you read the whole thing, chief? The Soviet Union was ruled through force and fear.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 06:24 AM


Human rationality is based on the premise that we are inherently self-interested.
I feel this is a fairly pessimistic view of human nature if it is the case then I see no hope for humanity we should all just give up now.

But hang on why would there be any socialist if we were all motivated by self interest. I don’t feel that every one is that mercenary most people are focused on self preservation, so if you sit on the fence you’re only helping the people in power. That’s why nothing ever changes because people a stuck into the cycle of consumerism just having enough to live but not enough to get ahead and think about the system.

[sadangelclown]

"I feel this is a fairly pessimistic view of human nature if it is the case then I see no hope for humanity we should all just give up now."

It's not pessimistic at all! We're individuals at heart-- humanity is not a collective species. And consumption isn't shallow, either, in fact it's shallow to consider consumption shallow-- what does it matter the method of assertion if individuals are actively asserting a personal identity/image? Communism would END that. Humanity would scramble to find some sense of self under communism-- if everyone has equal material wealth and access to the same goods, then what sets people apart? Perhaps my taste in wine is a character trait I value-- under communism, wine would all be state-produced. Thus, citizens would have the same access to all wine and my individualism would be undermined.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 06:48 AM
"I feel this is a fairly pessimistic view of human nature if it is the case then I see no hope for humanity we should all just give up now."

It's not pessimistic at all! We're individuals at heart-- humanity is not a collective species. And consumption isn't shallow, either, in fact it's shallow to consider consumption shallow-- what does it matter the method of assertion if individuals are actively asserting a personal identity/image? Communism would END that. Humanity would scramble to find some sense of self under communism-- if everyone has equal material wealth and access to the same goods, then what sets people apart? Perhaps my taste in wine is a character trait I value-- under communism, wine would all be state-produced. Thus, citizens would have the same access to all wine and my individualism would be undermined.

Still it is very shallow that you see things in terms of material wealth not in terms of the person. What would set people apart personality the ways in which we think all those kind of things that sometimes get ignored because the t shirt we might be wearing. Which has come around from capitalism with brands and labelling, this behaviour has transcended into other areas with people making assumptions simplifications. People have become in love with instant gratification meaning they don’t take the time to know the whole truth or the read reality. People are not being individuals but products of the community of mass media.


"It is easier to read a larger image than the smaller one, so we read the larger image to better understand the small" so said Socrates. For me this quotation mean that we the individual are a product of our environment, surrounding and influences. So the society that we grow up in has a profound affected on us. as do the people we talk to and the books we read. But then, we also influence the society being small elements of the whole.

So in a communist society people would not be so shallow to look at someone’s shirt and make a judgment to there personality, but would rely on what the person was really like in character

[hazard]

clearly, clown, communism controlled consistently by a military elite would be that way. but thanks for calling me chief. guess maybe you should have re-read what I wrote.

[redstar2000]

Human rationality is based on the premise that we are inherently self-interested. Thus, acting rationally entails acting with self-interest in mind, and so the rational action to take under a communist government is to free-ride.

Actually, the opposite is true...the rational act under capitalism is to "free-ride" whenever possible.

Any effort you make in a capitalist society will simply serve to further enrich an already fabulously wealthy elite...the working class never keeps "the fruits of their labors".

In a communist society free of "material incentives", the self-interested motive to "make an effort" is because it is intrinsically enjoyable to perform interesting and useful work.

Bourgeois ideology posits the assumption that work "for its own sake" (like wealth) is a privilege "properly limited" to an elite of "superior beings".

Communism posits the opposite: that every normal human being is capable of doing interesting work "for its own sake".

Because of your unsound premise, the rest of your arguments are irrelevant.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[SonofRage]

just to expand a bit on what redstar2000 said, he is exactly right when he says it is enjoyable to perform interesting work. In a Communist society, people will not pursue a field solely because they want to make lots of money. I had many friends in college studying computer science because they wanted a well-paying job but they honestly hated computer science and would have rather been studying other things.

In a Communist society, people would be free to pursue the courses of study and fields of work they really want.

[sadangelclown]

"it is intrinsically enjoyable to perform interesting and useful work"

Not all work is interesting and useful-- an economy cannot survive without a labor/production base.

"Still it is very shallow that you see things in terms of material wealth not in terms of the person."
You still don't get it. We consume to assert our individualism to the world.

[Guest1]

why not create to assert your individualism instead?

I write to do that, I have friends who have painted their rooms, and made decorations instead of buying them. You consume to affirm your conformity.

Anyways, what makes you thinkt hat there is no one who's willing to do each job? Capitalism does nothing to assure that every job is filled, yet they are, because we are all so different. One would expect a cirsis to occur in capitalism where no one wants to be a garbage man or janitor, because there are other jobs with the same physical requirements and pay, but without the stigma of "garbage man". Just as this doesn't happen in Capitalism, because we're all different, it wouldn't happen in Communism.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 06:30 AM
Many of those freedoms are included in the term consumption, which means not only to BUY, but also freedom of association. Thus, by consuming the culture of say, a labor union, you inherently have the freedom to right. Consumption not only entails the freedom of private property but also freedom of association and expression.

I advocate virtually all of those freedoms.
I don't think so. Maybe some of what I mentioned, but others have nothing to do with consumption. You cant just base every single aspect of human life into money, or we will go around killing each others because of the greed. And such things I mentioned shouldnt be base on "consuming".

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 03:27 AM

"Still it is very shallow that you see things in terms of material wealth not in terms of the person."
You still don't get it. We consume to assert our individualism to the world.
Just because something is state produced doesn’t mean they all have to be the same. But still you don’t get people are more then what they wear, it’s very superficial to think that and you’ve properly very bland in conversation only focusing on the sallow skin deep section of human experience.

[sadangelclown]

"But still you don’t get people are more then what they wear"
No, guy. You don't understand what I'm saying. Consumerism is not just "what you wear"; it's also the music you choose to identify yourself with, and all of your hobbies and interests. Of course you can create, too, but you aren't going to create everything.

"because there are other jobs with the same physical requirements and pay"

But not everybody can acquire one of these jobs-- the potential workforce is greater than the available jobs, thus virtually every job can be filled because every individual has a vested interest in working in order to survive. By the way, no menial labor pays as well as being a garbage man.

[Monty Cantsin]

No, guy. You don't understand what I'm saying. Consumerism is not just "what you wear"; it's also the music you choose to identify yourself with, and all of your hobbies and interests

Who ever said in a communist society every one would be forced to listen to the same music and wear the same cloths? I don’t think Marx or Engel’s were talking about a conformity factory. The conformity factory is hear today with people consuming because they feel the need to be part of the group so therefore its not individualism that consumerism brings its groupings and conformity. So in playing punk rock and wearing clash t-shirts your not asserting your individuality your being labelled.


so I think you really miss the point about what is important, the person personality.

[Saint-Just]

"Freedom is not solely about the free conflict of ideas, it first requires creating a society in which people are conscious of freedom and how they can express it. At present they are constrained about what we perceive to be false preconseptions about society, we see bourgeois ideology as ignoring material reality and the ideology as not a real analysis of society and history from an objective view point but rather an analysis created to maintain a system of inequity that benefits certain groups of people." ~Chairman Mao

So basically-- you know what freedom is, and we don't. Hmm. And you're going to force your notion of freedom upon the masses of whichever nation you want; the proletariat does not know what's best for itself, it cannot recognize freedom. The major problem with communism is that the proletariat does know what freedom is-- the freedom to own property and to pursue happiness through consumerism as well as through free expression. You probably aren't aware of the writer Nestor Canclini? He, along with many other Latin American writers, argue that citizenship/cultural identity now is rooted in consumption of the mass media and social groups. Meaning, by consuming say, punk rock, an individual asserts his identity within and against the identity of his collective society. In modern times, human identity is inherently connected to capitalist consumerism. Take away the ability to freely choose products with which to buy and thus assert identity, and humanity will be lost and faceless. ~sadangeclown

Thats a quote from me you were replying to. Anyway, the idea is that the Marxist analysis of history is correct. You would be right in saying that socialists know what freedom is. Marx's idea was that through exploitation the proletariat would become come to feel oppressed and alienated from the process of production. As such they would develop a consciousness of class structure and the oppression they face. Thus, it is not forced upon workers, but they become conscious of the reality. What you are suggesting here is that socialists are duping workers into have a false concept of freedom, that is a fair comment, the only way to disprove it is to argue over Marx's interpretation of history and how an individual is free.

Marxists would reject this theory of Nestor Canclini. First of all it is debatable whether people in capitalism really do have the ability to freely choose products, products are mass marketed and the fashions etc. people go through are engineered by large corporations rather than being chosen. In addition, many under capitalism do not have the freedom to choose, i.e. the impoverished, the poor wage-slaves, the unemployed. Furthermore, we see that the expression of ones creativity and the expression of self can come through the products you create as well as the products you choose to buy.

I am hardly the greatest Marxist theoritician, so I cannot answer the question much more than that, but there are people who can.

[Hoppe]

Yet it is highly debatable whether a true capitalist society would be the same as today. Without subsidies, patents, copyrights, tariffs, government-backed debt etc etc a company would have a hard time becoming the size of let's say Microsoft.

[redstar2000]

We consume to assert our individualism to the world.

I'm sorry and don't wish to hurt your feelings, but that is an idiotic statement.


Consumerism is not just "what you wear"; it's also the music you choose to identify yourself with, and all of your hobbies and interests.

Maybe you "identify" with music...I just listen to it, myself.

When you get into "hobbies and interests", you're getting closer to some kind of meaning for what being an individual is.

Now how about this one: what defines an individual is what they freely choose to work at, for what purposes and who they freely choose to relate to and why.

There's actually very little genuine individualism in capitalism...and the total is declining, if anything. People feel compelled by economic necessity to "take any job they can get" and "hold onto it for as long as possible". People "choose" their "friendships" and even "lovers" on the basis of "what that person can do to enhance my survival or advancement".

The whip of the market falls on nearly every back; only those who are independently (and securely) wealthy can ignore such matters and make their choices freely. And of course, they can only associate with others of the same class...for they can never "trust" that someone from "the lower orders" is not simply cultivating them because of their money.

Communist society says that everyone will live as freely as the wealthy do now. Not that they will "consume" as much; but that their choices will be as free from economic constraint.

They will be humans--not workers or consumers or, for that matter, exploiters. Those are roles created by capitalism...and will disappear with it.


Not all work is interesting and useful-- an economy cannot survive without a labor/production base.

That's self-contradictory. If it's not useful, then the economy doesn't need it "to survive" and no one will do it unless they find it interesting.

If it is useful but boring...then it will have to be shared equally, replaced by technology, or a useful and interesting substitute must be found.

It's rather clear that you like the idea of a society where other people clean up your shit for you--perform the "dirty work" that is "unfit" for a "superior" person like yourself.

Hee hee. Nice try.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[sadangelclown]

Your feigned intellectualism is hilarious!

"Maybe you "identify" with music...I just listen to it, myself."
Many people identify with music. You don't-- you identifiy with a quixotic and unrealistic socio-political movement. You consume into communist "culture" and it's pseudo-intellectual games. Every example of communism in the real world has failed miserably for the reason I stated earlier-- barring total cultural transformation, which is virtually impossible, force, manipulation, and fear are the only tools which a leader can use to subjugate the individual rationalities of a populace to the collective good. Every communist leader has relied heavily on force. And yet you cling to this ridiculous idea that communism provides freedom and democratic equality-- because it provides you with an ideological incentive, it helps to define you. You consume communist culture in order to create a self image; even your user name fits that model.

[redstar2000]

...you identify with a quixotic and unrealistic socio-political movement.

Now, now, calm down. There's no reason to get abusive.

If communism is "quixotic" and "unrealistic", then you have "nothing to fear"...we won't ever amount to a puddle of warm spit and you can go on "identifying" with whatever crap you like to consume until you die of terminal boredom.


Every communist leader has relied heavily on force...blah, blah, blah

Actually, that's Leninism that you're pissing and moaning about...I know Marxism is a difficult and complex subject for you to try and understand, but you should at least make an effort to get beyond silly conservative clichés.


You consume communist culture in order to create a self image; even your user name fits that model.

At least I get a good "price"...it's free. :lol:

But I don't think "consume" is the right word in this context--communist ideas "make sense" to me and the struggle for communism seems like a good way to have spent my life's energies.

I have, at least in my view, actively engaged Marxist ideas...not just "swallowed them whole" like a chain-store pizza.

Indeed, if anyone has "consumed" an ideology, that description would seem to apply to you much more than me. I have the impression that you have scarfed up a lot of Randian nonsense without really thinking about it much at all. Indeed, Randianism is even more "quixotic" and "unrealistic" than communism...you have no political clout at all, anywhere.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that real ruling class capitalists think of you Rand-cultists as "useful idiots".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Yazman]

Just as a little note to redstar2000, I really love reading any of your posts. Keep them up!