New to this all, and shocked

[RA89]

Hi guys

I've on and off read about politics for the past few years.

But it's only this year I've realised how outrageously selfish conservatives are.

I was arguing with some about welfare. A few of them were delusional about there being a level playing field and suggested poor people have the same chance of success and rich people. :rolleyes:

A few honest ones admitted there were disadvantages though, but stuck with the "they should stop being lazy" argument. So I mentioned how there are more unemployed people than there are jobs available, so there would also be people out of work thus unable to earn and needing help. Without help they'd live in poor conditions or worse starve.

Their response was basically "why is it my problem?" or "why should I be forced to help them?"

So people should suffer because they were unfortunate to be born into a bad situation?! :confused:

Are these people unable to empathize? How selfish can someone be where they ignore vulnerable people and just focus on themselves.

Any discussion I have with conservatives tends to turn into them justifying their selfishness.

I then tried to research why so many of them thought this way. Surely this is some kind of personality disorder?

I found these articles (I'm guessing the bits of info are possibly common knowledge but thought I'd share to provide an insight into what bothered me). edit: will provide links when I have enough posts to do so

<link coming soon> - interesting experiment, people who given money for doing a test, and either told to spend it on themselves or given a choice to donate to charity or spend it on themselves.
People were happy when told to spend it on themselves. Similar to conservative ideology which forces people to adhere to this selfish mindset, thus alleviating the guilt of not helping the poorer people.

<link coming soon> - this one shows that the ideology they have basically rationalizes social inequalities.

<link coming soon> - "Participants were happier with self-interest when they believed that it was externally chosen."

These people say what they believe with such conviction that I find myself wondering if I was wrong to believe humans naturally create societies to HELP EACH OTHER???

Anyway I wouldn't say I'm a liberal or leftie (not yet anyway). Just came here to learn and ask questions. All responses are appreciated, even if it is a link to another post/article. All I ask is that they are not too complicated to read because I am far from an expert (or intelligent lol).


1] Difference between communism and socialism?

2] In a society, I believe that there shouldn't be large gaps between classes. However I do think gaps should exist because I believe someone who builds spaceships or does brain surgery deserves to be paid more than the retail worker (who should be paid fairly of course but nonetheless in proportion to the education required for the role, the value of the job etc they should be earning less). Does this make me against socialism or communism?

Thanks

[The Idler]

I'm shocked too, but by your naivety


As Marx stated in the German Ideology
"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas,
i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch."
Socialism is not a moral ethical case. Socialism is scientific.

[Sotionov]

If a socialist says "capitalism should be abolished" that's a plain ethical statement, and argumenting it is neccessarily appeal to some ethical theory. There is simply can be no argument in favour of socialism or communism that isn't based on some form of some deontological or consequentialist ethical idea.

[adipocere]

But it's only this year I've realised how outrageously selfish conservatives are.

That's the first step.



Surely this is some kind of personality disorder? It certainly seems that way. However, I think many of them result from a combination of low-average intelligence, bad early education and a very traditional upbringing. The more clever ones are sociopaths.



2] In a society, I believe that there shouldn't be large gaps between classes. However I do think gaps should exist because I believe someone who builds spaceships or does brain surgery deserves to be paid more than the retail worker (who should be paid fairly of course but nonetheless in proportion to the education required for the role, the value of the job etc they should be earning less). Does this make me against socialism or communism?I'm going to skip to number 2. This is one of the most fundamental and heavily indoctrinated values in the US - and it is something you should spend time thinking critically about.

How many times have you needed a spaceship? How many times did you need brain surgery? Chances are (I hope about the brain surgery part) the answer is 0 and will always be 0 and is 0 for the vast majority of the worlds population. On the other hand how often do you need a retail clerk or rely on the work of farmer? What is actually more valuable to you and most of society? The idea that highly educated puffs are somehow more intrinsically valuable is a myth they need people to believe to continue being overpaid and basically useless. If it has to do with time spent learning to do something...anybody with a craft or skill has to spend a lot of time learning it to be any good at it - we just have been taught to have no respect for people who are good at necessary things.

Paid education is another thing - who's to say this surgeon and engineer are any more talented or intelligent then anyone else - their family just had the means to pay for the education, which is pretty much exactly how the education system works in the US. Why shouldn't higher education be free? Because it would level the playing field.

This is all fairly lightweight. If you were against socialism or communism you wouldn't be here. I wouldn't worry about labels yet, you still need deprogramming. :grin:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Forgive The Idler for lashing out. This forum is full of bitter motherfuckers, and we all take it out on newbies some times.


A few honest ones admitted there were disadvantages though, but stuck with the "they should stop being lazy" argument. So I mentioned how there are more unemployed people than there are jobs available, so there would also be people out of work thus unable to earn and needing help. Without help they'd live in poor conditions or worse starve.

I'd say it's worth going a step further here: Let's turn the tables and point out who's really lazy - the rich. Literally, the vast profits of capitalists aren't produced by nose-to-the-grindstone - they're produced by other people putting their noses to grindstone, and the act of "owning" the product of others' labour. So, like, next time this comes up, ask how many condo towers Donald Trump has built with his own hands. Ask if Bill Gates spends his days desperately coding and troubleshooting. Ask if anyone has ever seen the CEO of their company driving a forklift around the warehouse, let along producing any of the things in it.


Their response was basically "why is it my problem?" or "why should I be forced to help them?"

Well, unless the people in question are pretty well off, it's ultimately in their own interests - it's our problem too. When we end up counting quarters after paying rent, bills, etc. at the end of the month, it's because of the relative global power of the capitalist class. The meaningless and soul-sucking individualism of life in the "first world" is paid for by the violence and exploitation of the "third world". The problems of the people sewing our sneakers are certainly specific, but they're not unrelated to our problems.

Of course, if the people you're talking to are rich, it's a different question. Asking "Why?" in a situation of "force" misses the point: and to be clear, they should be forced. Their ill-gotten wealth, based on centuries of colonial genocide, forced labour, repression of women, etc. should be reappropriated from them by whatever means is at hand.


Are these people unable to empathize? How selfish can someone be where they ignore vulnerable people and just focus on themselves.

Ideology is a powerful thing - they've been taught all their lives that their decadent luxury is theirs by right of conquest, by virtue of their moral superiority (democracy! freedom!), and their unique merits. Of course, upon any reasonable examination this is bullshit, but it's amazing how easy it is to lie to yourself when your entire way of life is staked on it.


1] Difference between communism and socialism?

Well, most people who are sympathetic to, or have a general understanding of, communism will tell you that it describes a classless, stateless society with common ownership on the principle of "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs".

Socialism is more difficult. It obviously has a popular usage, in which it generally describes state ownership of the means of production (again, to various degrees depending on who you're talking to). On the radical left it generally describes either "the lower phase of communism" during which some aspects of capitalist society persist, or a distinct, pre-communist phase during which the working class and its party have seized political power, and are in the process of developing the means to create communism.


2] In a society, I believe that there shouldn't be large gaps between classes. However I do think gaps should exist because I believe someone who builds spaceships or does brain surgery deserves to be paid more than the retail worker (who should be paid fairly of course but nonetheless in proportion to the education required for the role, the value of the job etc they should be earning less). Does this make me against socialism or communism?

Well, it raises the question of "Why?"
After all, what good is a brain surgeon if nobody grows food for them eat? How does a person become a brain surgeon without somebody to build the university where they study? How is brain surgery possible without machinists to make the surgical equipment? What good is brain surgery without custodial staff to ensure the cleanliness of the hospital? How does the surgeon get to work every day without people to clean and maintain the streets?
Further, in this society, who gets to become a brain surgeon? Is it the most intelligent people who receive education? Of course not! University educations are provided to those with the money to pay for them, to those who received the best early educations and went to the best high schools, and who conform most closely to the expectations of bourgeois society. Who is to say that the janitor couldn't be the surgeon if they hadn't switched places in childhood? Does all this mean that the brain surgeon's children ought to grow up with the opportunities of their parents, and likewise, the janitors children with a pretty good shot at becoming janitors?
And to bring it back around, "brain surgery" is irrelevant if I die from unsanitary conditions because everyone said "Janitors? Fuck 'em!"

[Glitchcraft]

If a socialist says "capitalism should be abolished" that's a plain ethical statement, and argumenting it is neccessarily appeal to some ethical theory. There is simply can be no argument in favour of socialism or communism that isn't based on some form of some deontological or consequentialist ethical idea.

you really couldn't find an easier way to say this?

"argumenting it is neccessarily appeal to some ethical theory. "
what?

[Popular Front of Judea]

Bicycle Repair Man | Monty Python (http://youtu.be/rxfzm9dfqBw)

[Polaris]

1] Difference between communism and socialism?
Marx used the terms interchangeably to describe both the first phase and higher phase of communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history#The_stages_of_history for more info. Yep, I linked to Wikipedia.) Lenin however associated the lower phase of communism with the term socialism, which at least in his environment was commonly used in that manner.

But when Lassalle, having in view such a social order (usually called socialism, but termed by Marx the first phase of communism), says that this is "equitable distribution", that this is "the equal right of all to an equal product of labor", Lassalle is mistaken and Marx exposes the mistake.

"Hence, the equal right," says Marx, in this case still certainly conforms to "bourgeois law", which,like all law, implies inequality. All law is an application of an equal measure to different people who in fact are not alike, are not equal to one another. That is why the "equal right" is violation of equality and an injustice. In fact, everyone, having performed as much social labor as another, receives an equal share of the social product (after the above-mentioned deductions).

But people are not alike: one is strong, another is weak; one is married, another is not; one has more children, another has less, and so on. And the conclusion Marx draws is:

"... With an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, the right instead of being equal would have to be unequal."
Anyway, Lenin goes on into more detail about the differences between socialism and communism. I would recommend checking that out, it's published online from various sources like this one: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/. I would say that a major difference is the role of the state-- communism is stateless, socialism not so much. Different people interpret Marx in different ways-- some would say that the DotP is an altogether separate from communism, capitalist phase, while others say that while a society is under DotP is considered socialist.

You should also note that the term socialism has accumulated a much broader meaning over the years.

A famous phrase of Marx's is:
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
Whereas socialism generally goes more along the lines to each according to his contribution (see labor vouchers, etc.)

[cyu]

From http://www.revleft.com/vb/proof-plutocrats-unfit-t180387/index.html

high school educated participants proved to be better able to accurately identify the emotions in facial expressions relative to college educated participants.

individuals manipulated to feel they were of lower social class performed better in the Task which requires that participants identify emotions

lower-income individuals were more likely to help a distressed partner by taking on a larger proportion of the workload

lowerclass participants showed higher trait levels of attention to others’ needs relative to their upper-class counterparts.

people in positions of power respond with less compassion

Obhi and his fellow researchers took participants and randomly put them in the mindset of feeling either powerful or powerless. The powerless group was asked to write about a time they depended on others for help. The powerful group wrote about times they were calling the shots, and they knew it. (There was a control group who wrote about something else entirely.)

Then everybody watched a simple video. In it, an anonymous hand squeezes a rubber ball

while the video ran, Obhi's team tracked the participants' brains, looking at a region called the mirror system. The mirror system contains neurons that become active both when you squeeze a rubber ball and when you watch a stranger squeeze a rubber ball. the mirror system places you inside a stranger's head. you can also begin to understand the motivations another person has. Understanding what another person wants and doesn't want is a key component of developing empathy.

The researchers found that the mirror system was tuned down by power. What we're finding is power diminishes all varieties of empathy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hiwelcome.


But it's only this year I've realised how outrageously selfish conservatives are.

I was arguing with some about welfare. A few of them were delusional about there being a level playing field and suggested poor people have the same chance of success and rich people. :rolleyes:

A few honest ones admitted there were disadvantages though, but stuck with the "they should stop being lazy" argument. So I mentioned how there are more unemployed people than there are jobs available, so there would also be people out of work thus unable to earn and needing help. Without help they'd live in poor conditions or worse starve.

Their response was basically "why is it my problem?" or "why should I be forced to help them?"

So people should suffer because they were unfortunate to be born into a bad situation?! :confused:

Are these people unable to empathize? How selfish can someone be where they ignore vulnerable people and just focus on themselves.

Any discussion I have with conservatives tends to turn into them justifying their selfishness.

I then tried to research why so many of them thought this way. Surely this is some kind of personality disorder? no I don't think this is due to anything inherent at all; in addition I'd argue that liberals and conservatives are probably more or less equal in lack of genuine action and actual meaningful concern on these issues - how they respond to it just tends to be different.

Many conservative Christians give to charity, many liberals give to charity... In fact common people give more of their own money away proportionately than the rich for all their philanthropy. If you're a multimillionaire, then $10,000 is about a quarter to you, funding some university is like getting a magazine subscription, buying a candidate or political office for yourself is like buying a new couch.

At any rate, I think the problem comes in because under capitalism, joblessness on some level, poverty, etc are systemic. So welfare can certainly make lives better, but it can't solve the problem, charity might help a but, but that's all.

So add to this a more specifically neoliberal world... Where social spending AND wages and benefits are cut... Politicians and the media can pit people against each other and have them fight over crumbs while more and more of the whole cake goes to the top.


These people say what they believe with such conviction that I find myself wondering if I was wrong to believe humans naturally create societies to HELP EACH OTHER???nothing wrong, and people generally have lived this way. But in early societies, the collective effort was required to produce for the whole group; in capitalism, our collective productive effort is controlled by a tiny group of rich and powerful people. The daily responsibilities have been privatized to the home or the individual. So when families and individuals are struggling, it tends to increase competition, not a sense of solidarity inherently. It takes effort to develop that sense that we can rely on each other instead of competing (personal responcibility means it's YOUR job to care for YOU, fuck the other person). Like in the above post, however, similar shared experiences and hardships can also produce the potential to develop some sense of solidarity rather than isolation and alienation. This is why socialists and social anarchists try and organize with other workers... To help encourage this class solidarity and collective struggle for our common interests.

[The Idler]

It's not personal, but I'm fed up with lowest common denominator conservative bashing. Socialism is scientific, not an appeal to morality.

[Comrade Jacob]

1] Difference between communism and socialism?

Answer (1)
Socialism is the economic system in which to reach communism.

2] In a society, I believe that there shouldn't be large gaps between classes. However I do think gaps should exist because I believe someone who builds spaceships or does brain surgery deserves to be paid more than the retail worker (who should be paid fairly of course but nonetheless in proportion to the education required for the role, the value of the job etc they should be earning less). Does this make me against socialism or communism?

Answer (2)
You are against communism but not socialism because if in a socialist system classes are totally gone then so would the state. (Then you have reached communism). I dislike the argument of "They have a more "important" jobs they should get more" The reason behind that is I would rather have someone operating or treating me and people who just advance humanity to a good degree should be doing it because they want to help me not because they want to be able to have people below them.

[RA89]

Thanks for all the replies guys



How many times have you needed a spaceship? How many times did you need brain surgery? Chances are (I hope about the brain surgery part) the answer is 0 and will always be 0 and is 0 for the vast majority of the worlds population. On the other hand how often do you need a retail clerk or rely on the work of farmer? What is actually more valuable to you and most of society? The idea that highly educated puffs are somehow more intrinsically valuable is a myth they need people to believe to continue being overpaid and basically useless. If it has to do with time spent learning to do something...anybody with a craft or skill has to spend a lot of time learning it to be any good at it - we just have been taught to have no respect for people who are good at necessary things.

Paid education is another thing - who's to say this surgeon and engineer are any more talented or intelligent then anyone else - their family just had the means to pay for the education, which is pretty much exactly how the education system works in the US. Why shouldn't higher education be free? Because it would level the playing field.


Thar is a very fair point about nothing being possible unless people did all the so called small jobs too. But then I think, if people knew that no matter what job they did they would all be paid equal, wouldn't that put people off from doing more difficult tasks and instead doing the bare minimum?
It seems like this system of equal wage for everyone would heavily rely on people pursuing certain very important jobs out of love for academia since they'd be no added incentive of higher earnings? I think many people are money motivated so there could be a severe shortage of people in jobs that require more time/effort/studying.

If all education was free (same standard for everyone) wouldn't that create a level playing field thus justifying higher wage for certain jobs?

Or is the thinking here that for example once people start dying, people will automatically gravitate towards roles such as doctors and eventually we'll have all the people in all the roles we need?





I'd say it's worth going a step further here: Let's turn the tables and point out who's really lazy - the rich. Literally, the vast profits of capitalists aren't produced by nose-to-the-grindstone - they're produced by other people putting their noses to grindstone, and the act of "owning" the product of others' labour. So, like, next time this comes up, ask how many condo towers Donald Trump has built with his own hands. Ask if Bill Gates spends his days desperately coding and troubleshooting. Ask if anyone has ever seen the CEO of their company driving a forklift around the warehouse, let along producing any of the things in it.

Of course, if the people you're talking to are rich, it's a different question. Asking "Why?" in a situation of "force" misses the point: and to be clear, they should be forced. Their ill-gotten wealth, based on centuries of colonial genocide, forced labour, repression of women, etc. should be reappropriated from them by whatever means is at hand.


I read this quote from another discussion somewhere, slightly related was wondering what you make of this statement (he was told slavery wasn't the primary reason why America rose to power so quickly)

"america didnt even rise to power until the late industrial era, and slavery had been long abolished by then... we DID have lots of cheap labor in the irish and freed blacks though, if thats what you mean... natural resources and smart investors coupled with industrial genius is what led america to prosperity"

or if you could just expand upon "ill-gotten wealth" that would be greatly appreciated.




Well, it raises the question of "Why?"
After all, what good is a brain surgeon if nobody grows food for them eat? How does a person become a brain surgeon without somebody to build the university where they study? How is brain surgery possible without machinists to make the surgical equipment? What good is brain surgery without custodial staff to ensure the cleanliness of the hospital? How does the surgeon get to work every day without people to clean and maintain the streets?
Further, in this society, who gets to become a brain surgeon? Is it the most intelligent people who receive education? Of course not! University educations are provided to those with the money to pay for them, to those who received the best early educations and went to the best high schools, and who conform most closely to the expectations of bourgeois society. Who is to say that the janitor couldn't be the surgeon if they hadn't switched places in childhood? Does all this mean that the brain surgeon's children ought to grow up with the opportunities of their parents, and likewise, the janitors children with a pretty good shot at becoming janitors?
And to bring it back around, "brain surgery" is irrelevant if I die from unsanitary conditions because everyone said "Janitors? Fuck 'em!"

Please scroll up and read my response to adipocere, where I asked where the incentive for pursuing certain careers would come from without high wages as a motivation.



Marx used the terms interchangeably to describe both the first phase and higher phase of communism <link> for more info. Yep, I linked to Wikipedia.) Lenin however associated the lower phase of communism with the term socialism, which at least in his environment was commonly used in that manner.

Anyway, Lenin goes on into more detail about the differences between socialism and communism. I would recommend checking that out, it's published online from various sources like this one: <link>. I would say that a major difference is the role of the state-- communism is stateless, socialism not so much. Different people interpret Marx in different ways-- some would say that the DotP is an altogether separate from communism, capitalist phase, while others say that while a society is under DotP is considered socialist.

You should also note that the term socialism has accumulated a much broader meaning over the years.

A famous phrase of Marx's is:
Whereas socialism generally goes more along the lines to each according to his contribution (see labor vouchers, etc.)

Thanks for the links, before I commit myself to reading, can I just ask if that is the best place for me to start learning? Usually when I read stuff from this site I begin reading and within a few sentences I see a whole heap of terms which I need to read separate long articles to understand (and some of those articles contain terms which require other articles to understand) and it becomes frustrating. So could you point me in the direction of some basic text to build a foundation of knowledge with please?

I read in another thread someone was recommended to start with Karl Marx Works 1844 Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, would this be a good start? I'd prefer to read one book at a time ideally.


@ cyu Thanks for sharing very interesting.


welcome.

no I don't think this is due to anything inherent at all; in addition I'd argue that liberals and conservatives are probably more or less equal in lack of genuine action and actual meaningful concern on these issues - how they respond to it just tends to be different.

Many conservative Christians give to charity, many liberals give to charity... In fact common people give more of their own money away proportionately than the rich for all their philanthropy. If you're a multimillionaire, then $10,000 is about a quarter to you, funding some university is like getting a magazine subscription, buying a candidate or political office for yourself is like buying a new couch.

At any rate, I think the problem comes in because under capitalism, joblessness on some level, poverty, etc are systemic. So welfare can certainly make lives better, but it can't solve the problem, charity might help a but, but that's all.

So add to this a more specifically neoliberal world... Where social spending AND wages and benefits are cut... Politicians and the media can pit people against each other and have them fight over crumbs while more and more of the whole cake goes to the top.


Why would you say they are equal in terms of meaningful concern? I understand some people are liberals because their parents are, and some people are conservatives because their parents are, but assuming we're dealing with genuine liberals and conservatives doesn't the whole "I got mine now you go get yours" attitude of the conservatives show they are not as concerned with helping people?
I fully accept conservatives give to charity, but they know damn well if people decide not to donate (likely in hard economic times such as these) then to attack things like welfare surely implies selfishness?

Regarding the bold bit, so what would you suggest needs to be done?

I understand if in an ideal world there were plenty of jobs and booming economy we wouldn't need welfare but the reality now is we do, so until we can sort out the bigger issues it can solve the problem temporarily?


1] Difference between communism and socialism?

Answer (1)
Socialism is the economic system in which to reach communism.

2] In a society, I believe that there shouldn't be large gaps between classes. However I do think gaps should exist because I believe someone who builds spaceships or does brain surgery deserves to be paid more than the retail worker (who should be paid fairly of course but nonetheless in proportion to the education required for the role, the value of the job etc they should be earning less). Does this make me against socialism or communism?

Answer (2)
You are against communism but not socialism because if in a socialist system classes are totally gone then so would the state. (Then you have reached communism). I dislike the argument of "They have a more "important" jobs they should get more" The reason behind that is I would rather have someone operating or treating me and people who just advance humanity to a good degree should be doing it because they want to help me not because they want to be able to have people below them.

Please also see my response to the first quote in this post. I think as humans any combination of money/pride/status can motivate us, feels like we'd be repressing human nature by trying to eliminate that aspect of ourselves? Again I'd like to reinforce that I don't think the gap should ever become large, but enough to ensure the important yet difficult roles are fulfilled by society.


Again thanks for replies everyone.

[Sotionov]

Socialism is scientific, not an appeal to morality.
Do you advocate establishment of socialism? Or are you indifferent to whether there's capitalism or socialism? If you do advocate socialism, please answer me- why? Can you state your reasoning as to why capitalism should be abolished and socialism established?

[Polaris]

Thanks for the links, before I commit myself to reading, can I just ask if that is the best place for me to start learning? Usually when I read stuff from this site I begin reading and within a few sentences I see a whole heap of terms which I need to read separate long articles to understand (and some of those articles contain terms which require other articles to understand) and it becomes frustrating. So could you point me in the direction of some basic text to build a foundation of knowledge with please?

I read in another thread someone was recommended to start with Karl Marx Works 1844 Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, would this be a good start? I'd prefer to read one book at a time ideally.
Were my links a good place to start? Probably not :o
I was sloppy in my presentation for a someone new to radical leftism, sorry! If you are completely unlearned in communism, then I would not recommend reading any Lenin. Save that for once you've got a handle on 'pure' Marxism and are trying to find your tendency. Personally, I began with The Communist Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/) and then Das Kapital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/). Protip: Don't do that. The Communist Manifesto is a good place to start, but reading Das Kapital with no economic background is a world of pain (not to scare you away from it-- it is essential, just give it some time.)

Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 sounds good. Note that you can find that online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm, marxists.org has a lot of good reading material if you can stand to stare at your computer screen like me. Q (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=12488) made a nice list (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=7728) previously you might want to check out.

Perhaps Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm)?
Wage Labor and Capital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm) - Marx
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm) - Engels
Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch09.htm) - Engels
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/index.htm) - Marx

Definitely try out some anarchism (even if you know you're not interested, it's nice to get a feel for it).
The Conquest of Bread (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23428/23428-h/23428-h.htm) - Kropotkin
The ABC of Anarchism ( http://ia700505.us.archive.org/7/items/AlexanderBerkman-ABCofAnarchism/AlexanderBerkman-ABCofAnarchism_text.pdf ) - Berkman
God and the State (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/godstate/) - Bakunin

Don't forget some history, preferably after you're solid on theory. Actually, I would recommend reading individual's theoretical works along with books that describe the movement they were in, or their biography. E.g., read works of Russian Revolutionaries while (or directly before) you are learning about the Russian Revolution.
The People's History of the United States (http://www.thevenusproject.com/downloads/ebooks/Howard%20Zinn%20-%20A%20People's%20History%20of%20the%20United%20St ates,%201492-Present.pdf) - Zinn
A History of the Russian Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/) - Trotsky
Ten Days that Shook the World (http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1919/10days/10days/) - Reed
The Civil War in France (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/) - Marx
[insert books on Spanish Civil War*, German Revolution, Cuban Revolution, Feminism, Black Panthers, Cultural Revolution, etc etc. I'm not going to go through everything :)]

Yes, read Luxemburg, Trotsky, Lenin, Kautsky, Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, Bordiga, et al. After Marx. When the time comes, just do a little searching to figure out what their most important works are.

Oh, and I would also recommend The Motorcycle Diaries (Che Guevara, journal of his travels around South America in his early years, doesn't seem to be online) and Homage to Catalonia (http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_Catalonia/index.html) (George Orwell, first-hand account of Spanish Civil War*).

[RedMaterialist]

RA89, I used to have the same problem arguing with conservatives, i.e. trying to convince them to do the right thing. The problem is that you are trying to reform them; I think what you need to do is let them know that you intend, not to reform them, or point out their immorality, but to destroy them. Not violently, of course. Marxists intend to deny conservatives, capitalists, etc., the ability to exploit working people, and then to suppress and destroy the capitalist class. And the only way to do that is through a revolution, peacefully, one hopes. Tell your friends that you will see them on their way to the guillotine, metaphorically speaking, of course.

BTW, I would start by reading The Communist Manifesto, a lot.

[RedMaterialist]

I think as humans any combination of money/pride/status can motivate us, feels like we'd be repressing human nature by trying to eliminate that aspect of ourselves?

Humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years (Marx called it primitive communism) without the use of money to purchase their pride and status. Their pride and status were achieved by their own personality, work and character. Capitalism has made us believe that everything is for sale, including our humanity, even to the point of believing that the desire and greed for money is a part of human nature.

[The Idler]

Do you advocate establishment of socialism? Or are you indifferent to whether there's capitalism or socialism? If you do advocate socialism, please answer me- why? Can you state your reasoning as to why capitalism should be abolished and socialism established?I advocate the establishment of socialism because capitalism has been tested and failed but continues because people still support it. I don't intend to be one of the supporters of capitalism. Nothing moral or utopian about it.

[Sotionov]

You did't answer my question. Can you state the concrete reason because of which you think capitalism should be abolished?

[The Idler]

It has been tried and failed. Can you state the concrete reason because of which you think capitalism should be abolished without an appeal to morality?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why would you say they are equal in terms of meaningful concern? I understand some people are liberals because their parents are, and some people are conservatives because their parents are, but assuming we're dealing with genuine liberals and conservatives doesn't the whole "I got mine now you go get yours" attitude of the conservatives show they are not as concerned with helping people?
I fully accept conservatives give to charity, but they know damn well if people decide not to donate (likely in hard economic times such as these) then to attack things like welfare surely implies selfishness?Well, I might be coming from a different angle of seeing the indifference in practice of Liberalism - for example, in the Bay Area, there is uncontested Liberal political dominance and a very liberal-leaning culture, and yet voters passed things like "Sit/Lie" laws in San Francisco and Berkeley to stop homless people from... being in public basically. And I think some of the underlying political assumtions are the same for both: "people have hardships because they have made bad decisions and are lazy" vs. "some people have problems and it causes them to be homeless, but we should help them". Both locate the source of the problem in the induvidual.

I think a difference is that some regular conservative people are just much more ideological about it - and some are confident to just be assholes and openly resentful.

But you're right the two things (fuck the poor or welfare for the poor) aren't politically identical (I just don't think it's something inherent about the person or personality themselves). I think recognizing the need for some kind of real social welfare is much much better in terms of reforms than just privitizing it all to privite institutions and religious groups. It may not mean much in terms of Liberal politicians who will still persue these kinds of neoliberal "solutions" - but in terms of everyday people, someone who does at least want some kind of solid safty-net is someone who can be worked with and maybe convinced to go further than that. Someone who thinks all poor people are just lazy, probably isn't going to be convinced through arguments alone, they'll probably have to experience larger changes in society for them to start to think differently about it (if at all).



Regarding the bold bit, so what would you suggest needs to be done?

I understand if in an ideal world there were plenty of jobs and booming economy we wouldn't need welfare but the reality now is we do, so until we can sort out the bigger issues it can solve the problem temporarily?
Oh I definatley think we can and need to adress these problems in a practical and concrete way (though I'm skeptical they can be really solved within capitalism). There are lots of different reforms that have existed or exist in other countries which would make people's lives much easier (for those directly impacted) and this will also take pressure off of the whole class because if you don't have to worry that being fired will mean you loose your appartment at the end of the month (or loose healthcare and have little in terms of food-stamps or whatnot to get you through) then you are less likely to put up with shit when you do have a job, and be less likely to settle for less.

To me it's more of a question of who and how for reforms. I don't think we'll win any relief for the poor without a major fight in the neoliberal context because they actually WANT to make us less secure and more willing to put up with declining work situations (because the job might be shit, but at least it's a job!). So I think subjectivly something that activists and radicals need to do is help any movement of the poor as well as help try and build up class-consiousness and fight-back. In the US in the 1930s, there are lots of examples where militant unionists would actually win-over the jobless to help them in their struggles (and this also helped prevent these jobless from becoming scabs) and then the militants would conversly help with the struggles of the unemployed. Even creating our own sort of charities (or Survival Programs as the Black Panthers called it) if they are connected to an anti-austerity or worker's movement of some kind would not only give people some relief for an afternoon or day, but could also help aid attempts by homeless or jobless people to organize themselves.

[Comrade #138672]

2] In a society, I believe that there shouldn't be large gaps between classes. However I do think gaps should exist because I believe someone who builds spaceships or does brain surgery deserves to be paid more than the retail worker (who should be paid fairly of course but nonetheless in proportion to the education required for the role, the value of the job etc they should be earning less). Does this make me against socialism or communism?Being paid more does not make you part of a different class. Your class is defined by your relation to the means of production. If you own them, then you are bourgeois or a capitalist. If you don't own them, then you need to sell your labor to someone who does, which makes you proletarian or a worker. When you are talking about salaries, you are usually talking about workers. There are, of course, some exceptions, but I don't think we should discuss them here.

I have a feeling you would very well be for socialism, if you only knew what it was. There's no shame in not knowing this, though. Not too long ago, I had very confused ideas about socialism too. This is because capitalists deliberately propagate confused and harmful ideas about socialism, and make capitalism itself seem necessary, fair and natural, despite the contrary being the case. As has been said, you still have a lot of deprogramming to do, but you already seem to be well on your way by coming here.

Welcome btw. :)

[RedMaterialist]

and yet voters passed things like "Sit/Lie" laws in San Francisco and Berkeley to stop homless people from... being in public basically. .

So, what is to be done? They used to have sit ins at Berkeley to protest the Vietnam War. Why not organize sit ins where ever they are arresting the homeless. Bring cameras to record the police. Maybe you can shame the liberals. Do sit ins at the Google Bus Stops where only the Google employees can catch the private Google Bus.

[Sotionov]

It has been tried and failed.
You are again avoiding my question. Ok, let's try like this- failed at what?

[adipocere]

Thar is a very fair point about nothing being possible unless people did all the so called small jobs too. But then I think, if people knew that no matter what job they did they would all be paid equal, wouldn't that put people off from doing more difficult tasks and instead doing the bare minimum?It depends on what you define as difficult. Hedge fund managers are not necessarily doing anything difficult. People who plow fields are not there because it's easy, and people don't wait tables because they are lazy. People don't automatically take the path of least resistance in the absence of financial incentive. The argument is illogical.

We live in a society of wealthy people who reward themselves for being wealthy and spent a lot of effort convincing the rest of us that they deserve it. It's also an illogical argument when you understand that people in our society are fundamentally unequal, that capitalism perpetuates this and that bootstrapping is absolute bullshit. Inequality exploits people, forces them into drudgery and stifles socially useful innovation and investment.


It seems like this system of equal wage for everyone would heavily rely on people pursuing certain very important jobs out of love for academia since they'd be no added incentive of higher earnings? I think many people are money motivated so there could be a severe shortage of people in jobs that require more time/effort/studying. People are motivated by all kinds of things. Some go into fields because of their family, others because they are interested in the subject, some because it's all they feel they can do, some because they are talented, others out of social pressure, some for perceived stability, while some, and I would argue - very few, go into careers solely for money.


If all education was free (same standard for everyone) wouldn't that create a level playing field thus justifying higher wage for certain jobs? That depends - it will mostly drive the average wage/benefit down...unless we are talking about capitalist innovation that mainly seeks to turn excessive bullshit into a commodity. Once a trade, skill or racket is no longer protected, it's typically not as individually profitable.
Take medical doctors for example - there are a lot of them and they don't typically make as much money as they expected and acquire tons of debt in school. However out of those doctors, there is a small elite of plastic surgeons who are making money hand over fist peddling a mostly unnecessary and unethical service.


Or is the thinking here that for example once people start dying, people will automatically gravitate towards roles such as doctors and eventually we'll have all the people in all the roles we need? Yes, I think people fill vacuums. The average capacity of human cognition and labor is pretty narrow.

[The Feral Underclass]

It has been tried and failed. Can you state the concrete reason because of which you think capitalism should be abolished without an appeal to morality?

Why is opposing capitalism on moral grounds not acceptable?

[Thirsty Crow]

Why is opposing capitalism on moral grounds not acceptable?
Because, presumably, any such argument would circumvent a coherent materialist analysis of existing social relations.

Which might be true in relation to arguments appealing to notions such as justice, for instance. It is not that exploitation is unjust, it's just that people suffer specific and concrete consequences due to the operation of certain social-economic practices, and might realize they do not want to subject themselves to the aforementioned.

[The Feral Underclass]

Because, presumably, any such argument would circumvent a coherent materialist analysis of existing social relations.

Why would it? Are you telling me you have no moral objections to capitalism?


Which might be true in relation to arguments appealing to notions such as justice, for instance. It is not that exploitation is unjust, it's just that people suffer specific and concrete consequences due to the operation of certain social-economic practices, and might realize they do not want to subject themselves to the aforementioned.

Why does having a moral position on those things necessarily negate an understanding for their material explanations?

I do get rather fed up of people using this "moral vs materialist" argument as if to have a moral is somehow fundamentally at odds with being a communist. In any case, it's wholly absurd to try and claim that communists are void of morals. You don't have to pick and choose morals or materialism. It's perfectly acceptable to have a materialist understanding and be morally outraged at the same time. I mean, I'm not going to tell people how they can think, but if someone wants to have a moral view to capitalism, what difference does it make?

[The Feral Underclass]

I mean, ultimately why do you decide that exploitation should be fought against if you don't think it's wrong? There is one thing in understanding the nature of capitalism and its material implications, but then one has to choose to make a decision about what is right and wrong with that...

[Thirsty Crow]

Why would it? Are you telling me you have no moral objections to capitalism?It can, but it doesn't necessarily. And yes, I do have moral objections, but I think they play a secondary role. Anyway, I'm also tired of that cliche of "moralism v materialism"



Why does having a moral position on those things necessarily negate an understanding for their material explanations?It does not necessarily negate such an understanding. But, for instance, take the example of recent anger and moral outrage directed at corrupt, greedy bankers as those responsible for the crisis. In this form, placing focus on personal moral fortitude and quality is in fact counter-productive, and what I mentioned (coherent class analysis) is not an option, unless one would discard that starting point altogether. At least that's what "moralism" means to me, implying the evasion of the question of the function of accumulation and hoarding.


I do get rather fed up of people using this "moral vs materialist" argument as if to have a moral is somehow fundamentally at odds with being a communist. In any case, it's wholly absurd to try and claim that communists are void of morals.Yeah, I agree. I'm not sure if my reply suggested otherwise in any way. But still, a more nuanced version of the dichotomy might be useful.


I mean, ultimately why do you decide that exploitation should be fought against if you don't think it's wrong? There is one thing in understanding the nature of capitalism and its material implications, but then one has to choose to make a decision about what is right and wrong with that...
Because I get shat on in this way, and suffer concrete consequences on my life? I don't know, it seems to me that this is more of a "self-interest v. morality/altruism" kind of thing. Though, to be clear, I do not reject any kind of a moral argument, and I do hold morals of my own.

[The Feral Underclass]

It does not necessarily negate such an understanding. But, for instance, take the example of recent anger and moral outrage directed at corrupt, greedy bankers as those responsible for the crisis. In this form, placing focus on personal moral fortitude and quality is in fact counter-productive, and what I mentioned (coherent class analysis) is not an option, unless one would discard that starting point altogether. At least that's what "moralism" means to me, implying the evasion of the question of the function of accumulation and hoarding.

Right, but it's the job of communists to ground those moral outrages into a materialist analysis, not to belittle people for having morals, which The Idler seemed to be doing.


Yeah, I agree. I'm not sure if my reply suggested otherwise in any way. But still, a more nuanced version of the dichotomy might be useful.

I inferred from your post that you objected to morals. I think there is a case to be made that bourgeois morality is objectionable and should be objected to. In the face of such "moralism" I would always describe myself as immoral or even anti-moral.

But of course, to try and claim that I have no morals is impossible, since I am someone who has very firm notions of right and wrong.


Because I get shat on in this way, and suffer concrete consequences on my life? I don't know, it seems to me that this is more of a "self-interest v. morality/altruism" kind of thing. Though, to be clear, I do not reject any kind of a moral argument, and I do hold morals of my own.

Really? I have never really looked at it that way, as in it being a self-interest thing. I have always, since being very young, had a palpable connection to those who are "downtrodden", for want of a better word.

[Skyhilist]

2] In a society, I believe that there shouldn't be large gaps between classes. However I do think gaps should exist because I believe someone who builds spaceships or does brain surgery deserves to be paid more than the retail worker (who should be paid fairly of course but nonetheless in proportion to the education required for the role, the value of the job etc they should be earning less). Does this make me against socialism or communism?

Not sure if you're aware but communism opposes wages.

[Thirsty Crow]

Right, but it's the job of communists to ground those moral outrages into a materialist analysis, not to belittle people for having morals, which The Idler seemed to be doing.Yeah, definitely agree.


I inferred from your post that you objected to morals.
Well, no. I probably expressed myself poorly.

[Skyhilist]

You know what, lets ignore the fact that communism opposes wages for a second. Your notions are still flawed.


But then I think, if people knew that no matter what job they did they would all be paid equal, wouldn't that put people off from doing more difficult tasks and instead doing the bare minimum?

No. Because people aren't naturally motivated to do things by money; they're motivated to do those things because they like those things. Have you ever heard a 4 year old say "I really want to be a doctor when I grow up... they make a lot of money"? Of course not! Little kids aspire to jobs requiring a lot of education (even when their parents explain the amount of work it'll take) without even knowing how much those jobs pay and without having ANY monetary incentive. If janitor and herpetologist paid the same, I would still aspire to be a herpetologist because I love reptiles and amphibians. Monetary incentives are not necessary and they never have been.


It seems like this system of equal wage for everyone would heavily rely on people pursuing certain very important jobs out of love for academia since they'd be no added incentive of higher earnings? I think many people are money motivated so there could be a severe shortage of people in jobs that require more time/effort/studying.

Again: Try to find a younger child who has no aspirations (e.g. astronaut, doctor, etc.) and you'll find that it's often pretty difficult to do. Now, sort through those little kids and try to find a large number of them who aspire to a job because "it makes a lot of money"... you'll find that to be even harder! Money is a man made invention. It's not natural. No species is evolved to need money. It's a completely made up thing.


If all education was free (same standard for everyone) wouldn't that create a level playing field thus justifying higher wage for certain jobs?

No, because you haven't explained why those "certain jobs" requiring an education are more important. Why is the person who went to college for 8 years more important than the person who was producing food for him/her during those 8 years?

[Skyhilist]

It is not that exploitation is unjust, it's just that people suffer specific and concrete consequences due to the operation of certain social-economic practices, and might realize they do not want to subject themselves to the aforementioned.

If you say something is bad because people suffer, then you're saying suffering is bad (it is, but bear with me).

So you're suggesting that suffering is bad, which should therefore mean it's immoral.

Therefore, you're suggesting that capitalism is immoral, because it causes suffering.

Your argument is no less of a moral appeal than anybody else's when you get down to it.

[Thirsty Crow]

If you say something is bad because people suffer, then you're saying suffering is bad (it is, but bear with me).

So you're suggesting that suffering is bad, which should therefore mean it's immoral.

Therefore, you're suggesting that capitalism is immoral, because it causes suffering.

Your argument is no less of a moral appeal than anybody else's when you get down to it.
Okay, I get what you're trying to say, but I don't think this is the place for this discussion (maybe the thread on morality?). I'll only point out that I definitely did not say that exploitation is bad, and most of what I was trying to get across was more along the lines of self-interest rather than morals. But sure, the line between the two is probably thin and I can admit that it isn't very clear to me.

An interesting corollary question would be whether an argument that definitely does not constitute a moral appeal, within political discourse, is even possible, or is it that every argument can be stripped down ("getting down to it") to a kind of a moral appeal. I don't know honestly how to approach this and what implications to draw out.

[Fakeblock]

An interesting corollary question would be whether an argument that definitely does not constitute a moral appeal, within political discourse, is even possible, or is it that every argument can be stripped down ("getting down to it") to a kind of a moral appeal. I don't know honestly how to approach this and what implications to draw out.

I would say it isn't, but it can certainly be inspired by objective analysis. Marxists objectively analyse historical development, but communists use these analyses to draw revolutionary conclusions. These conclusions are essentially based on morality, but the morals are qualitatively different from those of other ideologies.

Liberals, social-democrats, conservatives et al. all claim that their morals are universal, objective and given, whereas Marxists would say that they are nothing but ideological expressions of certain class interests. It follows from this that all major moral disagreements that communists have with these other groups result from contradictory interests, not individual moral presumptions.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If you say something is bad because people suffer, then you're saying suffering is bad (it is, but bear with me).

So you're suggesting that suffering is bad, which should therefore mean it's immoral.

Therefore, you're suggesting that capitalism is immoral, because it causes suffering.

Your argument is no less of a moral appeal than anybody else's when you get down to it.Taking someone's factory away from them, destroying their ability to keep slaves or workers causes them suffering. The slave-owner or the capitalist didn't make the system or the rules of the game (often they were just born into it - and many are actually decent people probably) and yet we are going to "unfairly" take their property and power and shit because their shit keeps us enslaved.

I don't really care if people have their own moral code and this is what leads them to take action or whatnot, but in making arguments or trying to figure out how to act in a broader sense, I think it tends to lead to less clarity as opposed to speaking about things in terms of politics.

Most of the time I don't think it matters all that much though, I think I just have a negative reaction to it because of bourgeois morality (in all forms from "progressive" to "churchy"). Most of the time it seems like something used to keep people behaving in certain ways, or alternately blaming people for not living up to impossible ideals of behavior. But I'm willing to be argued away from this view.


So, what is to be done? They used to have sit ins at Berkeley to protest the Vietnam War. Why not organize sit ins where ever they are arresting the homeless. Bring cameras to record the police. Maybe you can shame the liberals. Do sit ins at the Google Bus Stops where only the Google employees can catch the private Google Bus.These are all really good ideas and I wasn't involved in any activism around this, but I know that there was and I know some people who were involved. I don't remember what they did or how much support they had however. But anyway, my main point was just on how "liberal concern for the poor" doesn't mean that in liberal-dominated areas that things aren't getting worse for folks in terms of the callousness of neoliberal austerity... they just abuse you with concerned tones and a happy face:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0e/Dead_Kennedys_-_California_%C3%9Cber_Alles_cover.jpg

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I find it intriguing how the 'money incentive' argument comes up so often in modern philosophical debate surrounding capitalism, and often as a wing of the silly 'human nature' argument as well.

People have done trade without a monetary medium for thousands of years. Hell, people have gone without large scale barter systems for even longer. What makes these people think that people will only do work for monetary incentive - a very recent occurence? 'Why do they have such an incentive in the modern age in the first place, especially considering how capitalism functions?' is, I think, a decent response.

Skwisgaar nailed it perfectly. Children do not have a 'monetary incentive' when they want their dream profession growing up. That side of the equation comes later (when wage-labour comes along to thwack them in the face).

[Luís Henrique]

I was arguing with some about welfare. A few of them were delusional about there being a level playing field and suggested poor people have the same chance of success and rich people. :rolleyes:

A few honest ones admitted there were disadvantages though, but stuck with the "they should stop being lazy" argument. So I mentioned how there are more unemployed people than there are jobs available, so there would also be people out of work thus unable to earn and needing help. Without help they'd live in poor conditions or worse starve.

Their response was basically "why is it my problem?" or "why should I be forced to help them?"

So people should suffer because they were unfortunate to be born into a bad situation?! :confused:

Are these people unable to empathize? How selfish can someone be where they ignore vulnerable people and just focus on themselves.

Any discussion I have with conservatives tends to turn into them justifying their selfishness.

I then tried to research why so many of them thought this way. Surely this is some kind of personality disorder?

I think such political positions may very well attract people with certain kinds of personality disorder. But I don't think they are the result of personality disorders at all. They are reflections about the world, which are informed by some facts, and by the reception facts have in many other minds - including those who control important communication outlets.

For those who are not in viewable risk of unemployment, and/or have reasonable alternatives to unemployment (a high level of employability, a wealthy family, enough economies to live out of them comfortably), the reality of people who live in slums and are at a constant risk of unemployment may seem an abstraction, or only take concrete aspects in threatening forms - where unemployment translates into criminality, for instance. These people are very likely to take conservative looks at poverty, unemployment, criminality, etc. It is not that they cannot empathise with people; it is that they empathise with those they see as victims - the old lady that was mugged, the middle class boy that was beaten because of his tennis shoes, etc.: those that it easy for them to think "it could be me".

For those who are in actual danger of unemployment or poverty, on the other hand, it often takes the form of vicarious revenge ("when I was unemployed/homeless/etc., nobody helped me, I was alone by myself - why should I now care about others? Let them sort it out, just like I have done").


These people say what they believe with such conviction that I find myself wondering if I was wrong to believe humans naturally create societies to HELP EACH OTHER???

On a more general level, those positions are more likely collectivist than individualist. People tend to think that social dangers such as unemployment or poverty benefit society in general, by eliminating the weaker elements and by giving the most able a chance to show their abilities.


1] Difference between communism and socialism?

None that can be explained in a short paragraph, or that matter at this moment.


2] In a society, I believe that there shouldn't be large gaps between classes. However I do think gaps should exist because I believe someone who builds spaceships or does brain surgery deserves to be paid more than the retail worker (who should be paid fairly of course but nonetheless in proportion to the education required for the role, the value of the job etc they should be earning less). Does this make me against socialism or communism?

Strictly speaking, in a communist or socialist society nobody gets "paid". People have a right to a share of the common product. Of course, if you build spaceships you should have preferential access to books about spaceship engineering, and if you do brain surgery, you should have preferential access to lancets, computerised tomographs, etc. But decent housing and nutrition shouldn't depend on educational level. Plus, people should be encouraged to live a more fulfilling life than dedicating themselves to a single "job" for life. Repetitive, dehumanising tasks such as garbage collection need to be automated, or, if impossible, to be shared on alternate turns.

By no means it should be expected that the children of a brain surgeon have a greater right to become brain surgeons themselves than the children of a janitor.

So, I don't think what you wrote makes you against socialism or communism, or in favour of it. It makes you someone who hasn't still given deeper thoughts about the issue, or, in your words, someone who is asking questions and trying to learn.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Sotionov & The Idler, the issue you are discussing is interesting and important, but it doesn't help in the context of this thread. How about starting another thread for it?

Luís Henrique

[RA89]

Hi guys, finally back. Hopefully the people who posted in this thread still use this forum lol.

Thanks for all the replies and suggested reading, I got through some which I will have questions on later.

Btw was there ever a "thanks" button that has now been removed or do I just need to rep people for it to come up?


Well, I might be coming from a different angle of seeing the indifference in practice of Liberalism - for example, in the Bay Area, there is uncontested Liberal political dominance and a very liberal-leaning culture, and yet voters passed things like "Sit/Lie" laws in San Francisco and Berkeley to stop homless people from... being in public basically.

Doesn't that mean that those liberal's in that area have gone against liberal values as opposed to this being an example of a flaw in the liberal system?

Or was that the point you were trying to make?





Being paid more does not make you part of a different class. Your class is defined by your relation to the means of production. If you own them, then you are bourgeois or a capitalist. If you don't own them, then you need to sell your labor to someone who does, which makes you proletarian or a worker. When you are talking about salaries, you are usually talking about workers. There are, of course, some exceptions, but I don't think we should discuss them here.

I have a feeling you would very well be for socialism, if you only knew what it was. There's no shame in not knowing this, though. Not too long ago, I had very confused ideas about socialism too. This is because capitalists deliberately propagate confused and harmful ideas about socialism, and make capitalism itself seem necessary, fair and natural, despite the contrary being the case. As has been said, you still have a lot of deprogramming to do, but you already seem to be well on your way by coming here.

Welcome btw. :)

That clarified a lot. To make things easier to understand can I provide a scenario-

100 people on an Island, if they were follow socialism would I be right in saying that:

- they would work to improve and maintain everyone's state of living
- they would collectively make important decisions regarding the community
- there would be no wages/money, they did the required jobs, and were provided food/shelter by the community

Please add to and/or correct this (anyone).

Thanks for reply + the welcome.

[RA89]

It depends on what you define as difficult. Hedge fund managers are not necessarily doing anything difficult. People who plow fields are not there because it's easy, and people don't wait tables because they are lazy. People don't automatically take the path of least resistance in the absence of financial incentive. The argument is illogical.

We live in a society of wealthy people who reward themselves for being wealthy and spent a lot of effort convincing the rest of us that they deserve it. It's also an illogical argument when you understand that people in our society are fundamentally unequal, that capitalism perpetuates this and that bootstrapping is absolute bullshit. Inequality exploits people, forces them into drudgery and stifles socially useful innovation and investment.

People are motivated by all kinds of things. Some go into fields because of their family, others because they are interested in the subject, some because it's all they feel they can do, some because they are talented, others out of social pressure, some for perceived stability, while some, and I would argue - very few, go into careers solely for money.

That depends - it will mostly drive the average wage/benefit down...unless we are talking about capitalist innovation that mainly seeks to turn excessive bullshit into a commodity. Once a trade, skill or racket is no longer protected, it's typically not as individually profitable.
Take medical doctors for example - there are a lot of them and they don't typically make as much money as they expected and acquire tons of debt in school. However out of those doctors, there is a small elite of plastic surgeons who are making money hand over fist peddling a mostly unnecessary and unethical service.

Yes, I think people fill vacuums. The average capacity of human cognition and labor is pretty narrow.

This is a fair response and makes sense, so does the other post by Skyhilist which provides an argument for why people would still go after all sorts of jobs. I don't have an answer/rebuttal.

Thanks for the reply.

[SmirkerOfTheWorld]

Hi guys

I've on and off read about politics for the past few years.

But it's only this year I've realised how outrageously selfish conservatives are.

Who's to say who's selfish? I'm hugely self-interested and perhaps selfish in my desires and aspirations. Revolutionary socialism isn't about altruism or 'helping the poor' that's very much a liberal idea. It's about establishing a better world for me and mine. A world where a tiny fraction own the majority of the wealth and where I am not free to live my life as I would see fit is something I don't want. That could be selfish I suppose - I'm definitely not thinking about the feelings of the ruling class...

[Red Commissar]

Btw was there ever a "thanks" button that has now been removed or do I just need to rep people for it to come up?

I'll let other users answer your political questions, but as for this-

The thanks button is still here, it's just that you can't thank posts that are old. I don't remember the exact cutoff limit (I think it's once a post is more than two months old or somewhere in that neighborhood). In any event once a post is old, it can no longer be thanked or repped.

[RA89]

Who's to say who's selfish? I'm hugely self-interested and perhaps selfish in my desires and aspirations. Revolutionary socialism isn't about altruism or 'helping the poor' that's very much a liberal idea. It's about establishing a better world for me and mine. A world where a tiny fraction own the majority of the wealth and where I am not free to live my life as I would see fit is something I don't want. That could be selfish I suppose - I'm definitely not thinking about the feelings of the ruling class...

So if you managed to become a huge success under capitalism then you wouldn't support communism?
Because if you did become a success under capitalism you would be free to do whatever you want whilst others earn you money (which shouldn't be an issue if you're selfish).



I'll let other users answer your political questions, but as for this-

The thanks button is still here, it's just that you can't thank posts that are old. I don't remember the exact cutoff limit (I think it's once a post is more than two months old or somewhere in that neighborhood). In any event once a post is old, it can no longer be thanked or repped.

Oh I see, thanks. :grin:

[Slavic]

So if you managed to become a huge success under capitalism then you wouldn't support communism?
Because if you did become a success under capitalism you would be free to do whatever you want whilst others earn you money (which shouldn't be an issue if you're selfish). :grin:

It is ultimately up to the individual. Most people make up the working class, yours truley, so naturally we would seek to implement policy/action that is in the interest of our class. Usually when one is aware of class struggle one sympathizes if not supports the working class due to its unfair treatment in the capitalist system. So you can have situations where people of the petite or bourgeoisie class support the proletariat cause regardless of their own class.

[AmilcarCabral]

RA89: And you know something, there is really no way in this world to change the behaviour of most ultra-right wing, self-absorbed, family-narcissists, stuck-up, egocentric, mysanthropist, social phobic people with zero social manners, zero social skills, zero courtesy for others, zero consideration for others (the way most americans behave), into a totally brand new way of living (unknown in USA) without a dictatorship, without a dictatorship of the communists in power, without a dictatorship of the communists, and the working class, destroying the old ultra-right wing philosophy of life using the powers of the new communist state.

Because that's the most scientific and powerful way to destroy the right-wing mental viruses ingrained in most americans and most europeans, in order to be replaced by a left-wing philosophy of life (which is thinking about others, love, solidarity, scientific thinking, social skills, courtesy, compassion, humility and other positive traits)

Because I think that privately, on our own the most we can is to maybe change a group of people, a minority, but it is impossible to change the 310 million americans from an ultra-right wing philosophy of life, toward an ultra-left wing philosophy of life without the left-wing seizing state powers.

As long as USA will be ruled by Democrats and Republicans, UK, Spain, Germany, Italay and other european countries by capitalist parties most people will love capitalism and will hate communism.

Unless there is a revolutionary situation, that would force most poor people to become communists. But since capitalist governments like USA can control people so easy, I see that crisis very far from right now, because humans are very conformists, humans can conform to any slight rise in wages done by capitalist governments.

So a more realistic solution would be for a minority of left-wing heroes in USA and Europe to overthrow capitalist states by force, and then once in government power, it would be a lot easier to use the economic and media power of the state to propagate the communist ideology thru the nationalization of CNN, FOX news and other TV news modern powerful stations and modern newspapers. But we have to be realistic, right now there are only 3 small progressive TV stations (Russia Today, Free Speech TV and Link TV) competing against very power TV news stations. So it is very hard for americans to digest and welcome the communist political ideology as a solution for their economic crisis




.



Hi guys

I've on and off read about politics for the past few years.

But it's only this year I've realised how outrageously selfish conservatives are.

I was arguing with some about welfare. A few of them were delusional about there being a level playing field and suggested poor people have the same chance of success and rich people. :rolleyes:

A few honest ones admitted there were disadvantages though, but stuck with the "they should stop being lazy" argument. So I mentioned how there are more unemployed people than there are jobs available, so there would also be people out of work thus unable to earn and needing help. Without help they'd live in poor conditions or worse starve.

Their response was basically "why is it my problem?" or "why should I be forced to help them?"

So people should suffer because they were unfortunate to be born into a bad situation?! :confused:

Are these people unable to empathize? How selfish can someone be where they ignore vulnerable people and just focus on themselves.

Any discussion I have with conservatives tends to turn into them justifying their selfishness.

I then tried to research why so many of them thought this way. Surely this is some kind of personality disorder?

I found these articles (I'm guessing the bits of info are possibly common knowledge but thought I'd share to provide an insight into what bothered me). edit: will provide links when I have enough posts to do so

<link coming soon> - interesting experiment, people who given money for doing a test, and either told to spend it on themselves or given a choice to donate to charity or spend it on themselves.
People were happy when told to spend it on themselves. Similar to conservative ideology which forces people to adhere to this selfish mindset, thus alleviating the guilt of not helping the poorer people.

<link coming soon> - this one shows that the ideology they have basically rationalizes social inequalities.

<link coming soon> - "Participants were happier with self-interest when they believed that it was externally chosen."

These people say what they believe with such conviction that I find myself wondering if I was wrong to believe humans naturally create societies to HELP EACH OTHER???

Anyway I wouldn't say I'm a liberal or leftie (not yet anyway). Just came here to learn and ask questions. All responses are appreciated, even if it is a link to another post/article. All I ask is that they are not too complicated to read because I am far from an expert (or intelligent lol).


1] Difference between communism and socialism?

2] In a society, I believe that there shouldn't be large gaps between classes. However I do think gaps should exist because I believe someone who builds spaceships or does brain surgery deserves to be paid more than the retail worker (who should be paid fairly of course but nonetheless in proportion to the education required for the role, the value of the job etc they should be earning less). Does this make me against socialism or communism?

Thanks