communism and socialism

[Xanthor]

I believe that communism is not what most people believe it to be. Most people, even some communists, believe it to be a type of government, whereas I believe it to be a “way of life”. I believe that socialism is the form of government that stabilizes the communist way of life where there is a true democracy is in place where everyone has a vote. There will be separate districts that are not ran by a single person, i.e. a mayor, but rather by everyone in the district. I believe that under socialism there will be a steady decline of a monetary system and a system is established where, for example, if a farmer harvests their crops they exchange it for other types of food, tools, or any other necessity. Where if a person is a computer technician they use their services in exchange for food, shelter etc. This way everyone works for what they get and there are no lazy people who don’t work but get things.

Please enlighten me on any mistakes and compliments.

[Essential Insignificance]

I believe that communism is not what most people believe it to be. Most people, even some communists, believe it to be a type of government, whereas I believe it to be a “way of life”.

You won't find any genuine communists -- with a basic understanding of the communistic tenets -- who profess that communism is a "form" of "government".

Communism is a classless society!

When it comes, to well-grounded, "objective" doctrines such as communism -- peoples "beliefs" have nothing to do with anything of significance.

Communism has it's inherent, immutable feature's just like capitalism does.


I believe that socialism is the form of government that stabilizes the communist way of life where there is a true democracy is in place where everyone has a vote.

Well, it could be a "mechanism" or "means" to "introduce" people to the communist "way of life"... but I think you, have missed the "crucial point" -- that the amassed, conscious proletariat class, has already smashed the yoke of class repression.

I think they're "on the way" -- regardless of "enlightened forerunners" to "show them the way".


There will be separate districts that are not ran by a single person, i.e. a mayor, but rather by everyone in the district.

"Mayors" neither "run" nor "rule" anything.

It's just a means for the proletariat to be tricked into thinking they have a "real say" -- when they don't!

[Xanthor]

okk no offense but damn you sure know how to confuse a b. i see what you mean. but damn you know your words

[Paradox]

Most people, even some communists, believe it to be a type of government

It is true most people don't know what Communism is. Most of my friends don't know what it is, but they think it's "wrong" or "evil" just because that's what they're told in school. Little do they know that Communism cannot possibly be a dictatorship because Communism is STATELESS!!! Though I don't yet consider myself to be a Communist- I'm still learning the basics- I'd agree with Essential Insignigicance's argument that no "genuine" Communist would call Communism a form of government.


if a farmer harvests their crops they exchange it for other types of food, tools, or any other necessity. Where if a person is a computer technician they use their services in exchange for food, shelter etc.

Wouldn't food be free? As would healthcare and education? Why would people have to "use their services" in order to get necessities? This sounds like how things are now, only you seem to be saying that instead receiving money for their work, they will get food, shelter, or other things needed for basic survival.


This way everyone works for what they get and there are no lazy people who don’t work but get things.

Sounds like capitalism, where wealthy people "worked hard" to "earn" their disgusting amount of wealth. Isn't this the argument they use? They say that people who don't have much and are struggling, are in those conditions because they "don't work hard." Of course, we all know how worthless an argument that is. Work would be voluntary in a Communist society. At least, that's what I've heard so far. I'm sure there will still be "lazy" people, but wealth won't be an issue.
I'm sure you don't intend to starve out the "lazy" people, right?

[Xanthor]

Wouldn't food be free? As would healthcare and education? Why would people have to "use their services" in order to get necessities? This sounds like how things are now, only you seem to be saying that instead receiving money for their work, they will get food, shelter, or other things needed for basic survival.

food wouldnt be free. there requires tools and help etc to produce the food. the farmer gets these things in return for him to produce the food to be distributed to the people.


Sounds like capitalism, where wealthy people "worked hard" to "earn" their disgusting amount of wealth.

no no no the people wont get wealth. welath is a commodity. in a communist state there is no commodities so that one person does not have everything. the people work so everyone can get what they need to surivive with food, shelter, healthcare, and even entertainment, and education. you dont understand that nothing is "free" people work and get things in return no matter if its communist or capitialist. and in communism though people work so that everyone lives content.

[QUOTES They say that people who don't have much and are struggling, are in those conditions because they "don't work hard." Of course, we all know how worthless an argument that is. Work would be voluntary in a Communist society. At least, that's what I've heard so far. I'm sure there will still be "lazy" people, but wealth won't be an issue.
I'm sure you don't intend to starve out the "lazy" people, right?[/QUOTE]

There is a difference between lazy people and people who struggle to live with 2 jobs and a family to feed. incase you dont know the difference i'll enlighten you. lazy people dont work, dont care, but expect things to be there for them i.e. the bourgeosie. the latter are people who are expected to work to their graves, and get little for there work, and keep quiet and docile so as to not disturb the ""the upper classes"" as for the lazy people straving comment no i dont intend to starve them i ihtend to feed and give them shelter give them healthcare, BUT I intend fo them to work in return. BTW most of the people who grow up in a communist society wouldnt be lazy due to the fact they would know that they dont inherient anything and wont be spoonfed. they would be educated to know what person is to due to survive

[Paradox]

food wouldnt be free. there requires tools and help etc to produce the food. the farmer gets these things in return for him to produce the food to be distributed to the people.

Food would not be produced free, I know that. Everything costs in that it takes human labor to produce those things or the machines used to produce them. I'm saying that other people are not going to have to buy food, there will be no money. No one will go hungry.


There is a difference between lazy people and people who struggle to live with 2 jobs and a family to feed. incase you dont know the difference i'll enlighten you. lazy people dont work, dont care, but expect things to be there for them i.e. the bourgeosie.

Of course there's a difference. I'm saying that arrogant capitalists try to equate the two in order to justify the huge inequalities capitalism creates. They (not me) say that those people aren't working "hard enough" and that's why they don't have much, even though they're working very hard to survive. They say it's their (the people's) fault for not going to college and use many other worthless arguments to justify this unjust system.


as for the lazy people straving comment no i dont intend to starve them i ihtend to feed and give them shelter give them healthcare, BUT I intend fo them to work in return.

That's what I was saying. We want those people to contribute to society, we don't want them to just sit around and do nothing. It's just that the way you worded your argument in your original post seemed a bit strange.


you dont understand that nothing is "free" people work and get things in return no matter if its communist or capitialist. and in communism though people work so that everyone lives content.

Yes, people work to get things. But given that work in Communism is voluntary, it's possible that some people will not work often. Now I'm not saying a lot of people will be this way, I'm just saying that some will. But we're not going to deny them food or shelter. They'll be looked down upon, I'm sure, but they'll still get food, healthcare, etc., etc. as you said in your latest post. We can only hope that they'll realize how important their contributions to society are and start working to better our society.

[sanpal]

I'd like to say my "2 cents" ;)

Many of members of this board say that in communist society the people will work voluntary . What it could mean? Very likely some ppl would be working and another not but all of them would have food and things. But nobody couldn't abolish dialectics - nor RS nor somebody else. In depth of such kind of society two opposite social phenomena will start existence and begin to wreck the communist relations. So...

"Voluntary working" in communist society means another thing. It means that man/woman voluntary agrees to join in communist relation with another people, i.e. he/she agrees to enter into communist economic sector of society where people would to produce and to distribute goods (services or things) together, in conference and he/she agrees to meet he/her's engagements and rules. If someone would has infringed the engagements and rules he could be outcast to the market economic sector of society which could be as "gulag" in respect of communist sector.

Anyhow such kind of "violence" would be much more humane than prison.

[sanpal]

I've forgotten to add ... "three economic sectors" society is a real socialism: these are 1)the traditional bourgeois capitalist (market) sector of economy under control of the proletarian parliament 2)the State-capitalist (market) sector of the Socialist (proletarian) government and 3)communist (stateless, marketless) economic sector.

[NovelGentry]

Many of members of this board say that in communist society the people will work voluntary . What it could mean? Very likely some ppl would be working and another not but all of them would have food and things.

Your definition of voluntary seems construed here. It has nothing to do with whether or not "some people are working" and "another not." It could very well be the case that EVERYONE works voluntarily. The term "voluntary" does not designate whether or not some do, some don't. It simply says that when they work, they do so on their own accord, no one is forcing them to do so.


But nobody couldn't abolish dialectics - nor RS nor somebody else. In depth of such kind of society two opposite social phenomena will start existence and begin to wreck the communist relations.

Nobody needs to abolish dialectics to realize that human existence could possibly be sustained in the future with no real work from humans anymore. All you have to do is look at how technology (and thus material conditions) progressed.


"Voluntary working" in communist society means another thing. It means that man/woman voluntary agrees to join in communist relation with another people, i.e. he/she agrees to enter into communist economic sector of society where people would to produce and to distribute goods (services or things) together, in conference and he/she agrees to meet he/her's engagements and rules.

I think Marx would beg to differ. As your second post to this shows, you're talking about some sort of sectioned economic condition. This is little different than the way states currently exist, except that no states maintain the socialist or communist aspect. First off, there would be no way to give capitalists a market "sector" and have them stay still. Capitalism is naturally imperialist and they WILL try to grow their market when what is "given" is saturated. Also, if it is to be actual free market we'll assume the government doesn't look to limit it. How exactly does this play out? does each sector have it's own political design as well? What makes this any different from the way the world is already split aside from saying that one part will surely be socialist, and another part will surely be "communist" (I use quotes cause I don't believe communism can exist if it's not global).


If someone would has infringed the engagements and rules he could be outcast to the market economic sector of society which could be as "gulag" in respect of communist sector.

This is interesting... what if the labor of that person is needed either way. With a gulag the labor still feeds society... if they're put in a truly capitalist "market sector" they have free market. Their products won't do crap for the rest of society. So I'm assuming there is then no trade between these sectors, and that they all develop independent of one another as separate societies?

It'd be a funny experiment, I'll give you that. It' be funny to watch the socialist society progress towards communism, and the capitalist society progress towards socialism. The communists could laugh at the internal revolution going on in the capitalist "market sector."

In short, I think your idea is insane. If it's not yours, I think whoever came up with it is insane.

[sanpal]

Your definition of voluntary seems construed here. It has nothing to do with whether or not "some people are working" and "another not." It could very well be the case that EVERYONE works voluntarily. The term "voluntary" does not designate whether or not some do, some don't. It simply says that when they work, they do so on their own accord, no one is forcing them to do so.

If we follow your logic so every employed worker in capitalist society is working voluntary. Nobody is able to force him to go to work excepting his feeling hungry. But if a person is guaranteed with food or things ... he could do it or don't. Marx said that in communist society everybody consumes as much as he gives to society back as a his working (in initial period especially). So every person if he wants to be a communar he has to solve to himself accept or not the communist relations. It means voluntary choice.


The rest points later

[Xanthor]

Yes, people work to get things. But given that work in Communism is voluntary, it's possible that some people will not work often.

Guess what happens if working is voluntary. people wont work. guess what happens when people dont work. things arent produced. guess what happens when things arent produced. people die. so if working was voluntary those people do nothing but get stuff. you know what that is? thats whats going on today with the CEOS the CFOS and all of them most inherint their wealth and such do nothing but gather more wealth and take from who does work. so what you are saying is that people who dont work any should be allowed to have ewhatever they want. we are only as strong as the weakest people and that would be lazy people. you see what im saying?

[Paradox]

most inherint their wealth and such do nothing but gather more wealth and take from who does work.

Yes, but there won't be any wealth for them in Communism. What I'm saying is that we're not going to keep food from them. Of course we don't want people to not participate in improving society, we don't want them to just sit around and do nothing. Those who are able to work, but choose not to, we'll have to get through to them, so that they see how important their contributions are. How we get through to them is something we'll have to work on.


so what you are saying is that people who dont work any should be allowed to have ewhatever they want.

NO. That is NOT what I am saying. Take people who are mentally or physically disabled, for example. If those people are not able to work, that doesn't mean they won't receive food, healthcare, etc. The same goes for children who too young to work. Everyone will get food, healthcare, education. People who are able to work, but are "lazy" will still receive food, healthcare, etc., but we'll keep pressuring them to get up off their asses and help. They aren't going to get "whatever they want." Maybe we could keep them from obtaining less-than-necessary items such as televisions, and other entertainment devices. If they want these items, they'll have to work for them. But they'll still receive food and things NECESSARY for good health. "luxury" or entertainment items would have to be earned. Of course this is just a thought, I'm not sure that it would work. What are your ideas regarding the subject?

[Xanthor]

Take people who are mentally or physically disabled, for example. If those people are not able to work, that doesn't mean they won't receive food, healthcare, etc. The same goes for children who too young to work.

OMFG you think im stupid or something don't you. im talking about people who can work but dont. those people who dont work are not only hurting themselves they're hurting everyone. that would in clude me you everyone. so if they dont work screw them they arent going to destroy what i work for. if people dont work they kill me and everyone i would not let them do that to me or anyone. dont you get it? dont you get that if we give people the choice to work or not but still recieve the same benefits will decide not to work. then guess what happens people will start to form capitalism because they will believe that at least people will work then and they wont have to die because of some fucking slob sitting on their ass.


Maybe we could keep them from obtaining less-than-necessary items such as televisions, and other entertainment devices. If they want these items, they'll have to work for them. But they'll still receive food and things NECESSARY for good health. "luxury" or entertainment items would have to be earned.

people can still borrow things from their friends and steal and mooch off of others. if we give things to people who work there will be classes and if we decide to not give people who dont work anything they will learn to survive and start to work. we cant just say "come on guys we really need your help because your not doing anything and we are getting less and less food oh by the way heres your food water and natural gasses" im sorry but it just wont work with the whole voluntary work thing. but if people work for a good portion of there life and then decide to retire after oh say 30 years of service to the people thats o.k. or if people are disabled they can do other things productive to mankind i.e. steaphen hawking.

[Paradox]

OMFG you think im stupid or something don't you. im talking about people who can work but dont.

No, I'm not trying to insult you. I was just using those people as an example of how no one will go hungry.


im sorry but it just wont work with the whole voluntary work thing.

So why do people keep saying that work would be voluntary? That people would be able to take time off whenever and for however long they want? I don't think many people would sit around and do nothing, the majority would realize they have to work to contribute to society, not just for themselves, but for everyone else.


so if they dont work screw them they arent going to destroy what i work for.

Sounds similar to what I said:


They aren't going to get "whatever they want." Maybe we could keep them from obtaining less-than-necessary items such as televisions, and other entertainment devices. If they want these items, they'll have to work for them.

Only you seem to be saying "let them die." Not just deny them these items, but food altogether. So to clear this all up once and for all, in a hypothetical situation, what would be done to people who are able to work, but don't?

[Xanthor]

So why do people keep saying that work would be voluntary? That people would be able to take time off whenever and for however long they want? I don't think many people would sit around and do nothing, the majority would realize they have to work to contribute to society, not just for themselves, but for everyone else.

I dont know but they are stupid and dont understand economics at all.

[NovelGentry]

Sanpal


Nobody is able to force him to go to work excepting his feeling hungry.

The rest of your post does not deserve any response given this single sentence, but so that people don't take your word for truth, I'll respond anyway.


Marx said that in communist society everybody consumes as much as he gives to society back as a his working (in initial period especially).

Marx said "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

Very elegant and simple if you ask me. However, there's two very different ways to look at it. The first is how you appear to take it, and it does little more than create man as an extension of the machine he labors in front of. We GIVE and GIVE to our ability, whenever we CAN work we SHOULD!!! And what we get out of this is the products we need to survive, little more. Is this really the type of society you think we all fight for?

What I would argue is the proper interpretation has two levels. The first splits the first part. From each according to their ability... i.e. if a person is trained as a doctor, let them be a doctor. That is their ability, this is what society gets from them. Second, if it is to be a conditional that THIS is when we're to have reached communism, Marx could very easily be saying that YES, the only time we have communism is when each works according to their ability. This is to say that man is conscious enough and socially responsible enough to contribute to society, ALL men. To each according to their need... well this is tricky. Marx himself knew that technology would outproduce society, given that, why would he ever argue any need? Certainly that should all man should be definitely afforded from society. There is no way society can guarantee luxury, nor should it. Does this mean luxury doesn't exist? No. Does this mean all luxury is self-created by the man who wants it? No.


It means voluntary choice.

Then man is not truly free and as such other entire principles of Marx fly out the window, such as that of pure democracy for which Marx argues can ONLY occur under a truly free society.

Xanthor


Guess what happens if working is voluntary. people wont work. guess what happens when people dont work. things arent produced. guess what happens when things arent produced. people die.

Well aren't you the great theoretician we've all been missing. Too bad you're wrong. Ask yourself what man in his right mind would not work EVER? The answer is no one. People enjoy the things they do, plain and simple, if you do not, you're free to find something else to do with your time. The fact is that work is to be transformed very rapidly under socialism from the mundane work that we see under capitalism as extensions to the machine to something which is enjoyable, respectable, and possibly most important, helpful.

You don't HAVE to believe me of course. Believe all you want that everyone will just sit around and do nothing and then we will all die when we all the sudden realize there's no food left. I personally plan to work about 12 hours a day. Two of which I will gladly produce more food than I could consume in days.


so if working was voluntary those people do nothing but get stuff. you know what that is? thats whats going on today with the CEOS the CFOS and all of them most inherint their wealth and such do nothing but gather more wealth and take from who does work.

This may be the case, but in the end this is allowed not because society deems such life necessary, but because they believe it is. Very simply these people *OWN* the means of production. You couldn't make your own means for survival if you wanted to thus they can FORCE you into labor. They don't just live off what you do, they force you to live off what you do for them. On top of that they take whatever they can that sustains your life to the bare minimum that you can work another day.

There is not FORCED exploitation under communism. If you do not wish to contribute to society because these SOBs sit around and do nothing, don't. If the next guy feels the same, he doesn't have to either. In the end YOU will suffer from this as much as the rest, more to the point we will see a sad day for the supposed "communism." This problem of despising work like the plague should have been long solved in socialism, if people didn't feel society was ready to function and move on from the possible credit system in socialist society, they wouldn't have made the dive.


so what you are saying is that people who dont work any should be allowed to have ewhatever they want. we are only as strong as the weakest people and that would be lazy people. you see what im saying?

No, I don't see what you're saying. Your argument takes no account of the way society has changed since capitalism, more to the point this most recent statement is filled with typos and horrible wording.

Let me try to response anyway.

"So what you are saying is that people who don't work should be allowed to have whatever they want?"

Yes. As should those who DO work.

"We are only as strong as the weakest people and that would be lazy people"

No, that would be severely mentally and physically handicapped people who just about "live" and do little more. These "lazy" people should have no effect what so ever on the functioning of a successful communist society. More to the point, they shouldn't exist under the function of a successful communist society.


dont you get that if we give people the choice to work or not but still recieve the same benefits will decide not to work.

Apparently I don't get it. Give me the choice to sit on my ass all day and do nothing or do something productive and creative and I'll choose the productive and creative thing 10 times out of 10. Assuming of course I'm physically able and not sick or something.


I dont know but they are stupid and dont understand economics at all.

Excellent argument. Let me guess, your extensive knowledge of Adam Smith has shown you that people need forced life incentives to work. Or the possibility of "more food on my table." The economics is the easy part, what's difficult is the socio-psychological portion -- and even that isn't nearly as impossible to grasp as you make it sound. Five cheers or dancing the monkey's dance.


OMFG you think im stupid or something don't you.

To be honest... .yes, at this moment I do.

[Raisa]

I can bet when there is communism or even higher socialism there wont be as many restaurants or stores because the only reason they find so many people to work at these places is because those people are subjugated by their class and all need a job.
When there are no more classes, whos going to spend 8 hours working in KFC.

In communism people will be more independant because it saves us time, and we will reach new heights of education, like having medical knowledge so we can diagnose some of our own illnesses. Still there will be a doctor specialist to see who REALLY knows just incase. Same as cars. I bet more people will be able to fix their own cars.
Picking vegetables, Im not sure that is someones job. It only happens a certain time a year, I think its a thing local people can all do alot faster if they all made a point to help, and they can plan that all on their own.

Capitalism gets people to do alot of stupid jobs for a long time all because of their class.
In a classless society I think alot of those things we will do together, and get it done faster and be able to focus on other things like being educated. And we will have a society where more people know how to do alot of the things we pay for today, because there is time for that growth as we are all helping each other with the necisary work like cleaning or harvesting. There will be specialists, but we will all be able to help ourselves alot more.

[Xanthor]

I'm sorry about my wording and such but most of the things you said are what I was trying to say but I'm shitty at these kind of things, so please forgive my shitty wording. But with the whole thing about people decidng if they are to just sit on their asses and reap the benefits I believe a lot of people would chose that. You see I am a student at a Georgia high school in the ""good 'Ole U.S. of A."" and the people in my school [and just about where ever I've been to in the last few years] are lazy fucks who dont give a shit about anybody else so long as they get whatever they want to make them satisfied. And I believe, if given the option of sitting around eating and talking with friends and shit like that over doing something productive to the rest of mankind they would chose the "lazy" option.

P.S. Please forgive my grammer or vocab or whatever, but a lot of what I was trying to say came out wrong. I will in future posts correct what I say and make it more intelligible. But like I said earlier a lot of what you just said I meant and a lot of what you may have thought I meant is misinterpeted.

[Raisa]

Well, for one people in communism are probably more caring about others since it effects them so much.

So here is a scenario.


Two weeks ago we had a local council meeting, and we all agreed that we would all go and pick the tomatoes on the next Tuesday. Because we are all working on this , it probably wont take more then 4 hours to pick the tomato crop for those intrested.

There are skilled jobs that we individually specialize in like automechanics or surgery , and then there are tasks that get done faster when we all do it like picking tomatoes-

So now its Tuesday, and everyone is heading out in the morning when it is nice and cool to pick the tomates, and you are still in bed. People will probably try and see if your sick, leave you alone. Now if alot of people just stayed in bed that is way different. And people would get frustrated with them for all being lazy beucase now they have alot of extra tomatoes to get. So you see,its that simple.
You make your neighbors mad,

[Xanthor]

That's kind of what I've been trying to sya, but on a much smaller scale.


whos going to spend 8 hours working in KFC.

The Teenagers would. Just like it is today.

[NovelGentry]

and the people in my school [and just about where ever I've been to in the last few years] are lazy fucks who dont give a shit about anybody else so long as they get whatever they want to make them satisfied.

Well you see there's a problem with your estimation, this is under capitalism. Work is a pain in the ass under capitalism, and most people don't like it one bit. Surely even your laziest of friends has an interest, even if it's playing video games.


And I believe, if given the option of sitting around eating and talking with friends and shit like that over doing something productive to the rest of mankind they would chose the "lazy" option.

Ignoring the possible hundreds of years of socialism before communism doesn't make it's effects go away. Furthermore, there's evidence that currently exists that disproves this ideas. Hobbies alone are enough to show that people ENJOY doing things.

[Erin Go Braugh]

I think communism makes little sense. Socialism makes little sense. Democratic socialism, on the other hand, makes a lot of sense. Look at Sweden! Those guys have free internet connection, if you play first-person shooters: Swedish players have 5 ping.

[Xanthor]

Well you see there's a problem with your estimation, this is under capitalism. Work is a pain in the ass under capitalism, and most people don't like it one bit. Surely even your laziest of friends has an interest, even if it's playing video games.

Of course I know that it is under capitalism, but surely you have heard of the saying "Old habits die hard". And what I am trying to say is that, yes everyone has their hobbies and such, but really would playing video games be productive to the rest of man kind. Unless you say to a perticular person to instead of just playing the game to make the game and to go even further then that tell them to devolop a faster type of internet or a better computer to further devolop the education of the people. This is all just "what ifs" though, but yes I see what you mean.

[NovelGentry]

I'm sure many of the people who play games would love to make them. They'd love to be able to influence what kinds of games are developed, what aspects are in the game play. There are people who currently test games all day. Such people who are not actually "productive" members of society would probably be looked down upon.

Certainly no one wants to be that loser who the whole of society sees as lazy and childish... no one wants to be that under capitalism, what would make them want to be that under socialism and eventually communism?