Log in

View Full Version : Why communism?



Karl Marx's Camel
25th December 2004, 23:43
[I am so sorry I clicked "edit" when I meant to click "quote" and I lost your post :( I tried to restore it as best as I could.]

Why communism?

What's the point?

Why fight for a society that has never before been achieved?

Do you honestly think it is practically imossible?

What is the incentive to work in a communist society?

When all attempts to create a communist society has failed, why do you expect the next "attempt" to be succesful?

Communists claim that they are against societies where some live of the wealth of others. That is impossible, or at least very difficult under a socialist society, but what are going to stop people from doing that in a communist society

How are you going to to stop that people take according to ability, and work according to need?

How is a communist society supposed to survive, against capitalist nations, without central authority?

Elect Marx
26th December 2004, 00:51
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 11:43 PM
Why communism?

What's the point?
Because people are divided and dominated by class. Do I have to go into why that is bad?


Why fight for a society that has never before been achieved?

Do you honestly think it is practically imossible?


Why wake up in the morning if your life is shit? ...to improve conditions and to generally make the world a better place. The only obsticle for a movement of the people is the mindset of ignorance enforced by the state. The motivation ALWAYS arises when people understand who their oppressors are and how to stop them (discounting odd circumstances).


What is the incentive to work in a communist society?

To make a better life for yourself and everyone else. If we cannot live for that, what is the point?


When all attempts to create a communist society has failed, why do you expect the next "attempt" to be succesful?

I do not expect the next one to succeed or fail because I do not know for sure when, where and with what means it will be put forth with but a global communist revolution has never been attempted. To succeed, we need an educated and active base. "The people," need to run society knowlegably.


Communists claim that they are against societies where some live of the wealth of others. That is impossible, or at least very difficult under a socialist society, but what are going to stop people from doing that in a communist society

People will all have the power to run their own lives. No one will have the ability to force groups to do thier biding. If anyone shows such reactionary tendencies, they will not be allowed to use criminal acts to enforce their will.


How are you going to to stop that people take according to ability, and work according to need?

Uhh, you said it wrong or at least different than the common phrase but people will provide whatever they see is needed by society and in return, they will be respected and cared for. Did answe the question? I could answer more specific ones...


How is a communist society supposed to survive, against capitalist nations, without central authority?

There is no communist society until international socialism transitions into (international) communism (classless society).

The phase before communism or the dictatorship of the proletariot (ie socialism) needs to be run by the people (the liberated workers). In this phase counterrevolutionaries will be suppressed when they commit crimes against anyone.

Osman Ghazi
26th December 2004, 03:02
What is the incentive to work in a communist society?

Because presumably, you like your job. After all, if you don't have to worry about how much money you make, you can choose from any profession you like. Why choose a job that you hate?

For myself, if I could get up every day and teach, and not have to worry about money, I'd be the happiest man in the world.

Elect Marx
26th December 2004, 05:12
Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 26 2004, 03:02 AM
...
For myself, if I could get up every day and teach, and not have to worry about money, I'd be the happiest man in the world.
I disagree, I would be happier with my art and mechanical design work... maybe we can agree to be equally happy?

I can't understand why anyone would turn down the opportunity to live as they choose and make contributions to society as they choose. It seems the confusion and prejudice wrought in our society runs deeper than most people understand.

When the day comes that people can no longer be held idle by a vale of ignorance, we will triumph and along with all of humanity

Karl Marx's Camel
26th December 2004, 06:16
Because people are divided and dominated by class.


What about socialism?

Why not just keep socialism and work for that one hundred percent, instead of just keeping it as a phase?

People won't be exploited under a socialist society, would they?



Do I have to go into why that is bad?


No need for further explanation.


Why wake up in the morning if your life is shit? ...to improve conditions and to generally make the world a better place.


Can't that happen with socialism alone?


I do not expect the next one to succeed or fail because I do not know for sure when, where and with what means it will be put forth with but a global communist revolution has never been attempted. To succeed, we need an educated and active base. "The people," need to run society knowlegably.

How are you supposed to educate people?

Even people in the Third World are 'more then occupied' with just bringing food on the table than revolutionary theory. When is that change going to happen in this world? Obviously, communists are not very popular. When do you think we will be?



Uhh, you said it wrong or at least different than the common phrase


Yes I know, that was the point :)


but people will provide whatever they see is needed by society and in return, they will be respected and cared for. Did answe the question? I could answer more specific ones...



OK (what I meant), what if most people just want to sit home, watch television, and eat french fries? What if they don't give a shit if people respect or care about them?



There is no communist society until international socialism transitions into (international) communism (classless society).



So basically what you are saying is that all the socialist states have to wait for the capitalist nations (who probably DOES NOT want to be socialist)? That sounds more like a Trotsky theory then anything else.

And why do you believe it is impossible to create a communist society while there still are capitalist nations?


In this phase counterrevolutionaries will be suppressed when they commit crimes against anyone.

Who is going to supress them, and where does the line go between critcizing the government and 'counterrevolutionary activity'?

Raisa
26th December 2004, 08:23
What about socialism?

Why not just keep socialism and work for that one hundred percent, instead of just keeping it as a phase?>>

I dont think it is that easy, my friend.
After there is no more class antagonism and there are no more classes at all, what is the point of a socialist state?
The true socialist state upholds the rights of the working class first and always. The fact that you have to uphold a class's rights shows that there is an opposing class.
Socialism empowers the working class to grow in power representation and numbers as it eliminates things like bosses and replaces it with unionized democratic workplaces. As the working class grows greater, the state has less things to do. The bigger the working class gets the smaller the opposition gets, and the less tasks the state has to do to preserve their interests- untill eventually- there it has nothing to do but count votes and serve as a means for coordination in carrying out the peoples efforts, and at this time there are no more classes. Every one is the same class. This isnt a state anymore, it is an admistrative democracy. And this is communism. Everything is in the hands of the people in a classless society.
And that is why you can not hold onto socialism forever. Eventually it is simply unecissary, like an old scab from the cuts capitalism had sliced into the working class, wounds heal and scabs fall off, and preserving socialism forever is like trying to keep a scab. By the time the cut heals - why keep a scab?

Elect Marx
26th December 2004, 09:24
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 06:16 AM

Because people are divided and dominated by class.


What about socialism?
Communism is the ultimate goal of socialism. When all people are educated to the point where they understand the need to produce and care for their environment/society and the social conditions are set to allow everyone to act as individuals in a community with respect for those that respect the community the transition is complete.


Why not just keep socialism and work for that one hundred percent, instead of just keeping it as a phase?

Because socialism is a phase of repressing reactionary tactics and ending class oppression. If the social structure is not progressing in this direction, it is not socialism and if the process is complete, it has become communism.


People won't be exploited under a socialist society, would they?

The idea is to stop oppression in this phase. The socialist action should be acting against counter-revolutionary abuses.


Can't that happen with socialism alone?

I think I have covered that. I can always expand if you need elaboration.


How are you supposed to educate people?

Well, by writing this now, I should be reaching a few people. In demonstrations and protests, I reach a few people. I also reach people in discussions and in organizations that protect human rights. There are so many ways to convey the message of struggle and unity to people.

"How" seems to be the biggest question as well as the most important. As I see it, there are two methods in building this movement: organizing the left and reaching people completely outside of the leftist community. Basically you need to spread an understanding of class oppression and with that effort, also destroy the mechanisms of the ruling class that enforce ignorance (prejudicial thinking for the most part).



Even people in the Third World are 'more then occupied' with just bringing food on the table than revolutionary theory. When is that change going to happen in this world? Obviously, communists are not very popular. When do you think we will be?

This depends on our efforts to reach these (the most deprived) people. I do not know if you are familiar with the "pyramid of self actualization" (I don't know if that is phrased right) but the desperate circumstances they face are a great mechanism of ruling class control. Providing for the most basic human rights of the people should really be a high priority of all leftists. When people have the means to search for the root or their problems, they do, unless they are held back by their prejudice an a warped sort of admiration for authoritarian domination. Also, by supporting human rights, we should gain the support of the people but due to ruling class propaganda, our efforts become confused. This is why we must break the misinformation devices of the ruling class.

We will be popular when we can unite the left against the ruling class and gain the means to bring our movement to the public. I don't know how to estimate the current ability of the left and how it will impact all of the facets of society. All we can really do is to each work on our own level and as leftists, bring our strengths to one another, as well as finding the areas of society which to approach, which best advance our cause.


...what if most people just want to sit home, watch television, and eat french fries? What if they don't give a shit if people respect or care about them?

Then we are and always have been doomed. This issue has been addressed so many times... if people's natural instinct was to waste thier lives, I don't see how we could ever make any advancements. The simple fact that large groups of people organize around the causes they deem important (non-selfish causes), demonstrates that people care enough to spend their time bettering society and I don't see why this trait would be rare in people.


So basically what you are saying is that all the socialist states have to wait for the capitalist nations (who probably DOES NOT want to be socialist)? That sounds more like a Trotsky theory then anything else.


No, not at all. I am saying that any socialist nations should have a broad base and work within other countries, actively reaching out to the people.


And why do you believe it is impossible to create a communist society while there still are capitalist nations?

Because they would imprison us, infiltrate us, bomb us and exploit us as they do now. Capitalism must be entirely abolished to transition into communism.




In this phase counterrevolutionaries will be suppressed when they commit crimes against anyone.

Who is going to supress them, and where does the line go between critcizing the government and 'counterrevolutionary activity'?

Good question! I say criticize all you like. “Counterrevolutionary activity” is when you attack the people in general, if you threaten or mistreat anyone for reactionary purposes. The point is to act on the failures you see. The form must be a sort of community democracy. You see reactionary action, you take action. Weather you can imprison the criminals within your community or must call upon some sort of voluntary force that would protect against the horrific weapons capitalists use.

I rambled on a lot, I find it hard to keep focuss on such abstract subject matter but I hope I mostly answered your questions.

Osman Ghazi
26th December 2004, 12:54
"pyramid of self actualization"

AKA Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which shows the order that humans usually worry about their needs.

1Physiological Needs (Food, water)
2Safety Needs
3Social Needs (friends, respect)

5Self- Actualization Needs (becoming what you want to be)

I can't remember number 4 though. Can someone help me out?

Professor Moneybags
26th December 2004, 18:42
This depends on our efforts to reach these (the most deprived) people. I do not know if you are familiar with the "pyramid of self actualization" (I don't know if that is phrased right) but the desperate circumstances they face are a great mechanism of ruling class control. Providing for the most basic human rights of the people should really be a high priority of all leftists.

Rights ? Such as what ?

Colombia
26th December 2004, 19:19
Notweird you should read the high school commies guide. It will make all clear to you.

synthesis
26th December 2004, 20:07
I believe the steps you're talking about are like so.

1. Ensuring physical safety
2. Developing good relationships
3. Earning respect from peers
4. Connecting self-interest with a collective interest
5. Finding a meaning for existence
6. Making a difference in people's lives
7. Serving humanity and the planet

EDIT: Found a link (http://www.gs2.net/www/family/1.htm).

Elect Marx
27th December 2004, 08:44
Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 26 2004, 06:42 PM

This depends on our efforts to reach these (the most deprived) people. I do not know if you are familiar with the "pyramid of self actualization" (I don't know if that is phrased right) but the desperate circumstances they face are a great mechanism of ruling class control. Providing for the most basic human rights of the people should really be a high priority of all leftists.

Rights ? Such as what ?
The right to live... being able (access to the means of production) to attain sustenance, medical care, having the freedom of mobility (to associate with others and not be greatly limited in resources). This really includes just the most basic needs that are often denied by profiteers (economic exploitation).

ALSO - Thanks to my comrades for finding information on that sociological development chart :hammer:
I should have taken better notes in sociology class that day...

Professor Moneybags
27th December 2004, 12:04
The right to live... being able (access to the means of production) to attain sustenance, medical care, having the freedom of mobility (to associate with others and not be greatly limited in resources).

But the question is at whose expense ? Is it really at yours, or everyone else's ?


This really includes just the most basic needs that are often denied by profiteers (economic exploitation).

But as I have said before, a right to a job means that someone must be forced to provide you with one. A right to healthcare means that a doctor must be forced to deal with you regardless of your ability to pay. Most likely others will be made to pay the doctors wages through taxation. What is that, if not exploitation ? A moneyless system would reduce this to mere slavery, as the doctor would be reduced to working for free.

Karl Marx's Camel
27th December 2004, 23:43
Communism is the ultimate goal of socialism.

I believe socialists would disagree.

Elect Marx
28th December 2004, 09:53
Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 27 2004, 12:04 PM

The right to live... being able (access to the means of production) to attain sustenance, medical care, having the freedom of mobility (to associate with others and not be greatly limited in resources).

But the question is at whose expense ? Is it really at yours, or everyone else's ?
At the expense of anyone willing to aid society. I would be willing to help others and in return, I would have help when I need it. What do you mean by "everyone else's?" Even without any virtuous perceptions or complex reasoning, the logic of this support system seems quite clear.



This really includes just the most basic needs that are often denied by profiteers (economic exploitation).

But as I have said before, a right to a job means that someone must be forced to provide you with one. A right to healthcare means that a doctor must be forced to deal with you regardless of your ability to pay. Most likely others will be made to pay the doctors wages through taxation. What is that, if not exploitation? A moneyless system would reduce this to mere slavery, as the doctor would be reduced to working for free.

No; it doesn't. You can farm if you join a commune of farmers or help solve mathematical equations for mechanical construction. You don't need an employer for anything. A doctor can treat you if they want to be in that line of work. There is no currency under communism! If everyone that chooses to, works for free; there is no need for money.

Elect Marx
28th December 2004, 10:06
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 11:43 PM

Communism is the ultimate goal of socialism.

I believe socialists would disagree.
Not necessarily. I was speaking of socialism in terms of the communist model (AKA dictatorship of the proletariat). I am a communist, so you might also call me a socialist, as I intend to advance society toward socialism, to the end of communism.

Do you want to comment on more than my usage of the term socialism?

Erin Go Braugh
2nd January 2005, 19:47
I don't think the economy works that way. At least not in America. Common Welfare is a dead ideal...I know few people who work because they want too. If a video game designer is paid the same as a scientist, 50% of the population will test video games for a living. No one will dig the ditches or build the roads. There is no "one-class" final civilization, there will only be countinued coup's and revolutions into eternity. Do you honestly think that everyone is going to sit at home and be a good person instead of attempting to cease power? You say all of this revolution stuff, but none of you have what it takes to go through with it, and if you did, it would not last.

NovelGentry
2nd January 2005, 20:31
I know few people who work because they want too.

Sometimes they cannot afford the education to do what they want, other times they simply cannot find a job doing what they want to do... if you have to work to survive you will take whatever you can get... certainly you will always try to do something you want to do, but whether or not you are able to do it comes down to a lot more than just whether YOU are actually ABLE to do that job.


If a video game designer is paid the same as a scientist, 50% of the population will test video games for a living.

What's your reasoning for thinking this?


No one will dig the ditches or build the roads.

Communism will not exist until a certain technological advancement it met. There's no reason to assume under communism that we will have to dig ditches, or build roads. And if we do, those who are the most willing to help maintain society will do so. I have no problem digging ditches and building roads if I feel it's really necessary.


Do you honestly think that everyone is going to sit at home and be a good person instead of attempting to cease power?

I'll assume you meant seize power. The answer is quite simply, no. What we DO honestly think is that at some point the majority of people will become conscious enough to realize such attempts and will stop these attempts long before they ever present a realistic problem. People will have little need to be so reactionary if there really is nothing to gain. Exactly what power do you think people will try to seize? All political, social, and economic power would be in the hands of the people... do you think the people will give this up?


You say all of this revolution stuff, but none of you have what it takes to go through with it, and if you did, it would not last.

What makes you say this? How do you know anything about what I'm willing or not willing to do? Just because I'm not pumping gas into class bottles and hooking a rag fuse up to it makes me unwilling to die for what I believe in? I'm not a moron. There are ways in which we change society, at some point they will be physical, right now we need to change the general mental outlook of society, you cannot do this with a grenade in one hand and a gun in the other. When society has the mental capacity and consciousness to realize why we have to fight, then and only then should we begin fighting.

There are of course existing physical attacks against the current social institutions, and these attacks are useful for something we see as wholely necessary. But without poeple to educate others on the reality of such attacks, these attacks would be related stictly to terrorism and would be used only to feed reactionary ideas. Despite those who attempt to educate people, this is often the case anyway.