The decay of communism

[iloveatomickitten]

My view of communism. The working class want a better life than they have so they see communism as the answer so they band together to atain power and force society in that direction. When they reach communism the typical view is that without the "tools" of oppression capitalism will be unable to rise up again and communism will perpetuate the rest of human history (or at least this is the impression communists make on me). This is where I simply can't agree poeple will not want to stop bettering their lives due to their egotistical nature. Marxism as far as my knowledge goes is a positivist theory which rejects the indiviual subjectivity of the members of society, this means that the survival of communism is an innevitable prediction. Yet this approach is inadequate after communism as society is not a single body but a group of individuals and as a result of the fact that they are all are equal any reason they may have to group together and to act as a single body no longer exists as there is no common enemy, therefore society becomes more idividualistic in opposition to the communist ideal. People will become driven by attaining more with no care given to equality. This will begin on a very small scale with the most minute "crimes" becoming more socially acceptable over time and as a result the "crimes" will grow in magnitude untill they threaten the existence of the communist state. Not a necessarily a return to capitalism but some form of society based on the idividual.

Now then miso. do what you will.

[Misodoctakleidist]

What type of "crimes" are you thinking about?

[iloveatomickitten]

When I say "crimes" I imply no intent, something that one may do subconciously or at least take very lightly, such as stealing some small luxury though I can think of no specific example.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 06:48 PM
When I say "crimes" I imply no intent, something that one may do subconciously or at least take very lightly, such as stealing some small luxury though I can think of no specific example.
why would someone do that?

[iloveatomickitten]

Because they wanted to due to a natural instinct to gain more to ensure their future survival.

Lol looks like we're going back to greed again - natural or social.

[Misodoctakleidist]

what are they going to steal that will ensurew their future survival?

[iloveatomickitten]

A little food maybe. I'm not trying to claim that by stealing they do ensure their survival but that their instincts are ill prepared for such a radical change in circumstances as produced by the development of society based upon the intellect of man (and woman, if that may be sexist).

[Misodoctakleidist]

are you saying that someone will go into a shop ask for some food then run away with it instead of walking into a shop asking for some food and then walking out?

[iloveatomickitten]

lol :lol:

No.

OK so food was a bad example but the specifics of "what" are irrelevant to the point I was trying to make - that communism promotes indiviualism over co-operation by its very nature of existing without class.

[Misodoctakleidist]

it's completely relevent because you have yet to make a convincing argument that there is something people would steal and that it would bring about "the decay of communism"

[Pete]

Misodoctakleidist. Look at previous (and current) experiments using Leninism for examples of how 'stealing' brings about the 'decay of communism.'

Centralization is theft.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 08:13 PM
Misodoctakleidist. Look at previous (and current) experiments using Leninism for examples of how 'stealing' brings about the 'decay of communism.'

Centralization is theft.
we're talking about communism not centralisation.

[Pete]

I know, but the major experiments towards communism have ended in centralization, and the decay of the goals of the revolution through 'stealing.'

[Misodoctakleidist]

I don't understand how that's relevent, are you saying that communism will 'decay' due to the same factors?

We're assuming that communism exists and iloveatomickitten is trying to explain why it will 'decay'.

[iloveatomickitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 08:09 PM
it's completely relevent because you have yet to make a convincing argument that there is something people would steal and that it would bring about "the decay of communism"
My concept was not "something," simply "things" not specific items, simply a negligible misappropriation of societies resources. This is in direct opposition to the ideal of communism. I propose that this can only grow due to the indiviualism created by the lack of class.

[Misodoctakleidist]

You still havn't adressed the question of motivation in a helpfull manner, simply talking about 'natural human greed' isn't really good enough which is why i asked you to be specific, it would also help in assesing the consequences of such actions.

[iloveatomickitten]

Do you deny that class strugle is the result of those with few wanting more? It is this want that I refer to as natural human greed (people don't desire to be equal they simply want more). But "To be specific" - I am unsure as to how this would help, perhaps you simply wish to attack each proposal on its own so that you can apply an argument pertaining to the inablity of the individual to take such a course of action? I'll try to make my view clearer - A single person could with debatable level of difficulty gain more than another in communism, the amount they gain is also debatable. Though it remains that someone could disturb equality and I place the concept of natural human greed as a motivation for this. The lack of a common cause or benefit to unite people is the reason I claim that the non-existence on class would cause people to act out of their of interests, disregarding others. I believe that lack of unity would allow the misappropriation of resources to become sociably acceptable to the public thenceforth the decay of communism is inevitable.

I see class struggle not as a single path to a single end but more an ageless cycle of individualism and collectivism.

[Misodoctakleidist]

You still haven't explained how this could happen or how communism would 'decay'.

For the restoration of the class system some members of society would have to alter their relationship with the means of production but i don't see how that could be achieved.

[革命者]

In responds to iloveatomickitten, which proves i know no prejudice, with regard to your intellect, for i love the back street boys:

Simply because those with few want more we have to have a dictatorship of the proletariat, because aside from their individualism, we should have the majority having control over the relatively few capitalists.

If people see what they can accomplish within this huge class, with people in working class, they "see the light".

which doesn't guarantee that such a revolution will be succesfull in the long run.

[toastedmonkey]

This is where the 'New Socialist Man' (or woman) comes in, one may argue that it is a capitalist society that teaches greed from a young age, making it seem natural. However one could also argue that in Communism after a couple of generations the children will not have capitalist influences all around them and instead develop a natural instinct to be selfless and help society, thus removing the probelm of natural greed, that however could be far fetched theory.

A problem that could occur in that is, again, naturally teenagers are rebelious and will become bored or frustrated with communism not knowing any better or any different.

[Misodoctakleidist]

people may rebell agaisnt society but they wont rebel against the communist aspect of it, rebellion tends to be progressive and capitalism would be regressive. If communism existed then the idea of capitalism would seem absolutely ridiculous and if there weren't an historical president then it would be unimaginable, could you imagine anyone in a communist campaigning for a class system or a state? It would be completly unjustifiable not to mention impossible to achieve, it would be like someone now rebeling agaisnt capitalism in favour of the feudal system.

The reason i keep demanding that iloveatomickitten gives me an example of how communism could 'decay' is becuase it seems im possible to me that a class system could be restablished, how would someone take possesion of the means of production?

[iloveatomickitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 10:41 PM
You still haven't explained how this could happen or how communism would 'decay'.

For the restoration of the class system some members of society would have to alter their relationship with the means of production but i don't see how that could be achieved.
I'm not saying that class will be restored but simply that equality will 'decay'. This would lead into ecomonical chaos providing the opportunity for someone to make move to control the means of production. Given the opportunity you can't deny that the class system would rise again as I you have already agreed that opportunity will generate greed (simply look what happened to your 'primative communism').


people may rebell agaisnt society but they wont rebel against the communist aspect of it, rebellion tends to be progressive and capitalism would be regressive. If communism existed then the idea of capitalism would seem absolutely ridiculous and if there weren't an historical president then it would be unimaginable, could you imagine anyone in a communist campaigning for a class system or a state? It would be completly unjustifiable not to mention impossible to achieve, it would be like someone now rebeling agaisnt capitalism in favour of the feudal system.

Progressive? Radical is more likely - nihilism is not 'progressive' to you. And simply because we lack the foresight to compose something radical enough to transcend communism does not deny its existence.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 05:26 PM
I'm not saying that class will be restored but simply that equality will 'decay'. This would lead into ecomonical chaos providing the opportunity for someone to make move to control the means of production. Given the opportunity you can't deny that the class system would rise again as I you have already agreed that opportunity will generate greed (simply look what happened to your 'primative communism').
And how will this oppertunity come about? It's not good enough to make generalisations based on the use of language, give a pratical account of how it will occur.


Progressive? Radical is more likely - nihilism is not 'progressive' to you. And simply because we lack the foresight to compose something radical enough to transcend communism does not deny its existence.

Im not saying there couldn't be something more radical, simply that it would take a different dirtection since the class struggle would be over.

[redstar2000]

Yet this approach is inadequate after communism as society is not a single body but a group of individuals and as a result of the fact that they are all are equal any reason they may have to group together and to act as a single body no longer exists as there is no common enemy, therefore society becomes more individualistic in opposition to the communist ideal.

There is a valid point here, but it requires some amendments.

First of all, the universe itself is "a common enemy"...it doesn't give us whatever we want simply because we ask for it.

If humans want certain things, they have little choice but to cooperate to make the universe disgorge.

Thus humans will continue to have functional relations with each other...and the social relations that arise from that.

Secondly, communism "as an ideal" doesn't postulate a mathematical "perfect equality". Thus the minor and trivial discrepancies in consumption will not "undermine communism" as such. The fact that I consume three packs of cigarettes a day compared to someone else's two does not "make me selfish"...it might well be that that other fellow consumes three or four bottles of wine per week, compared to my one.

If you neither smoke nor drink, pick your own examples.

Remember also that there are reasonable objective limits to what any one person can consume...if you try to eat enough food for two people, you will grow dangerously obese; if you try to consume enough food for three people, you will die at a very young age, around 30 or so.

There's no reason for anyone to have more than one car...one is all you can drive.

Can any one person make reasonable use of more than a bedroom, a living room, a kitchen, and a bathroom?

And so on...it is functional equality we're speaking of here, not "perfect" equality.

With these two amendments, iloveatomickitten is actually right...there will be far more real individualism in communist society than as is the case under capitalism.

It just won't be about "how much stuff you have".

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

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

[Misodoctakleidist]

With these two amendments, iloveatomickitten is actually right...there will be far more real individualism in communist society than as is the case under capitalism.

So infact he is completely wrong since he argues that such a proccess would 'betray the communist ideal' causing it to 'decay'.

[iloveatomickitten]

OK.

In our nice communist state not everyones communist especially the old capitalists. In the absence of Stalin there's is little to really inspire fear in the public (unless I've missed something). Those people who haven't bought into the communist idealogy are going to go out of their way to do anything not communist. You will not be able to stop them all from doing this so there will be an inherent minnority that act in a less than communist way. At this point there are two possible direction for society to take: The public really crack down on the 'criminals' or the public join the 'criminals'. But they are not being wronged in such a way as to warrant the word oppressed so they have little reason to act as a single body unlike when the fought capitalism and with this they will not act to stop the micro capitalists (I have no idea what to call these hypothetical people). Seeing that they have more, they will try to emulate them. Though clearly this is in the long term not in their best interests people as a whole do not think this way as they are controlled primarily by instinct not logic. So after a while of people vying for control of resouces a class system is born.

Hows that?

[Solace]

therefore society becomes more individualistic in opposition to the communist ideal.

That's the thing.

Under capitalism, you indivuality is based on material things such as the clothes you wear. In our society, we define our individuality by what we consume. That's quite twisted if you think about it.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 06:08 PM
Hows that?
Rather poor


In our nice communist state not everyones communist especially the old capitalists. In the absence of Stalin there's is little to really inspire fear in the public (unless I've missed something). Those people who haven't bought into the communist idealogy are going to go out of their way to do anything not communist.

Like what? will they claim to own the means of production? will they claim to be the government?


You will not be able to stop them all from doing this so there will be an inherent minnority that act in a less than communist way.

Again, what are they going to do? and why?


At this point there are two possible direction for society to take: The public really crack down on the 'criminals' or the public join the 'criminals'. But they are not being wronged in such a way as to warrant the word oppressed so they have little reason to act as a single body unlike when the fought capitalism and with this they will not act to stop the micro capitalists (I have no idea what to call these hypothetical people).

How are they being wronged? if it is people comitting regular crimes they would be dealt with accordingly just as any criminal. How are these wannabe capitalists "oppressing" anyone? That would require a class system to exist already.


Seeing that they have more, they will try to emulate them.

How will they be able to get more?


Though clearly this is in the long term not in their best interests people as a whole do not think this way as they are controlled primarily by instinct not logic. So after a while of people vying for control of resouces a class system is born.

So by people commiting petty crimes that for some mysterious reason go unpunished they are able to steal the means of production?

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 08:13 PM
Misodoctakleidist. Look at previous (and current) experiments using Leninism for examples of how 'stealing' brings about the 'decay of communism.'

Centralization is theft.
Property is theft. When this was said this meant that something not owned in common was theft since in general the property of any individual was produced through the expropriation of labour.

Centralisation moves the product of private labour into the state domain. So you could suggest that it is theft, neo-conservatives would agree. However, if you deem the state to be under public jurisdiction you have not stolen but moved something from private ownership into common ownership.

In private ownership it is the decision of the individual what they may do with that property. Under the control of the state the public decide what may be done with that property.