Does the plan for communism

[The Machine]

Does the plan for a perfect communist state(or lack of state) leave room for any failure in its path?

[Martyr_Machine]

It assumes that people will welcome communism with open arms.
It assumes that greed will magically disappear once a communist state is established.
It assums that nobody will ever want anything.
It assumes that nobody will ever want to be something better, or to improve themselves in any way.

Communism is a pipe dream that will fail at every given opportunity.

[The Machine]

The road to communism is totalitarianism. History has told us that totalitarianism is not the road to the perfect communist state.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 3 2005, 03:57 AM
The road to communism is totalitarianism.
Was the Paris Commune Totalitarian?

No.

[Raisa]

What is wrong with the rule of the working class? They make the pot you piss in!

"Communism is a pipe dream that will fail at every given opportunity. "

you believe in a pipe dream....
Why dont you leave us the hell alone and go make some capital! :blink:

[NovelGentry]

It assumes that people will welcome communism with open arms.

They'd have no reason to after years of socialism, in fact, if they don't do so then communism won't exist. It's their decision in the end, they decide when the state dissolves.


It assumes that greed will magically disappear once a communist state is established.

There's no such thing as a communist state.


It assums that nobody will ever want anything.

On the contrary, it assumes our needs and wants will be fulfilled through an advanced and open means of production, that we will be so free that we can create the things we want if we so desire them. We can create them freely without thinking about "profit margins" or "demand" or other such market nonsense. It is production itself which is placed in the hands of the people, and thus it will always be fulfilling of their needs and desires.


It assumes that nobody will ever want to be something better, or to improve themselves in any way.

Also on the contrary, it assumes all people will want to be something better and all people will want to improve themselves and thus denies no one of this right. As a free society it creates the TRUE freedom, both materially and immaterially to do this. Capitalist society only gives this freedom to those who can afford it.

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 11:12 PM

It assumes that greed will magically disappear once a communist state is established.

There's no such thing as a communist state.
while this is true it dosnt make a point. no greed will not magically disappear. it will not ever disappear, but there will be no way for it to manifest itself becouse there will be nothing to be greedy over. you will have all you need.

[NovelGentry]

while this is true it dosnt make a point. no greed will not magically disappear. it will not ever disappear, but there will be no way for it to manifest itself becouse there will be nothing to be greedy over. you will have all you need.

To say it will never disappear is tragic. Greed is not ingrown into humans, if you think this is the case you ignore countless examples of people who are not greedy -- on the contrary may be quite generous. It's a nature/nurture thing and in this cause nurture is the cause. We are brought up in a society where we are told we're in "competition" with everyone else. We need to do the best we can in school, so we can get into good colleges, then we need to do the best there so we can get good jobs, then we need to do the best there so we can make a lot of money and be "successful." In order to do this you have to be as greedy as possible to make it as far as possible, because in a world where material resources are what matter much more than anything else, those who can hoard them the best will always have the most to do what they need to do. End of story.

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 11:36 PM

while this is true it dosnt make a point. no greed will not magically disappear. it will not ever disappear, but there will be no way for it to manifest itself becouse there will be nothing to be greedy over. you will have all you need.

To say it will never disappear is tragic. Greed is not ingrown into humans, if you think this is the case you ignore countless examples of people who are not greedy -- on the contrary may be quite generous. It's a nature/nurture thing and in this cause nurture is the cause. We are brought up in a society where we are told we're in "competition" with everyone else. We need to do the best we can in school, so we can get into good colleges, then we need to do the best there so we can get good jobs, then we need to do the best there so we can make a lot of money and be "successful." In order to do this you have to be as greedy as possible to make it as far as possible, because in a world where material resources are what matter much more than anything else, those who can hoard them the best will always have the most to do what they need to do. End of story.
all human emotions and traits are inbreed in to us. it is if the conditons allow it to manifest if the emotion or trait comes out.

[NovelGentry]

all human emotions and traits are inbreed in to us. it is if the conditons allow it to manifest if the emotion or trait comes out.

Emotions yes, traits, no. Traits are caused by those conditions, not revealed by it. It is not a human trait to believe you have divine right. However, in a society where religion was held as the end all be all of "truth." That trait formed, and when such societies begain to die that trait died with them. Without the creation of religion there could have been no divine right, and to say that the belief in God is ingrown to us would deny the possibility of atheists. Someone who was completely isolated form the idea of God etc in modern society would probably never develop that belief on their own, given that science explains a good deal of what we know. Hundreds of years from now that probability will be even lower, because science will explain even more than we know now.

[Essential Insignificance]

It assumes that people will welcome communism with open arms.
It assumes that greed will magically disappear once a communist state is established.
It assums that nobody will ever want anything.
It assumes that nobody will ever want to be something better, or to improve themselves in any way.

Marx's "scientifically" formulated the theory of "Historical Materialism" which is the materialist conception of history... of "social change".

Marx's basic, early theoretical interest was understanding how this occurs -- in an effort -- in the first instance... as an "aid" in to intervening in the course of "human affairs".

Traditional accounts of "social change"... of history -- are generally divided into two different species.

One locates the mainspring of change in factors -- that we may properly term "ideas"... be these existing in the minds of individual or transindividual.

The other, positions that change is brought about by various factors of human beings, mechanical systems, or geographical locations.

The former being an idealist conception, the latter being a vulgar materialist conception.

Marx made a subsequent critique of both irregular and inconsistent "ideas".

Marx thus looked at history itself... examined what were the "forces" that perpetuated and changed history. Namely what were the "driving forces" of history?

And to expound on just one of these: the "division of labor".

Marx looked at all the differing forms, cultures and societies that different "modes production" had produced... and thus located what will make communism different from them -- the absence of the "division of labor".

These divisions, however, sprung by virtue of "natural" predispositions -- such as physical strength, and mental intelligence.

The "head of the family" had the power of disposing of the labor-power of women and children and the products of the use of that labor-power.

And this is to say -- that he possess private property.

So, therefore, Marx grounded "private property" on the "division of labor".

And thus... "class society here we come!".

Under capitalism humanity finds itself being dominated by "forces" which itself generates -- though without being aware of it and thus subjugated by it -- in particular those of the economy and the political.

And thus... individuals are dominated. For an individual belongs to a "class" by certain "relations" defining "membership" of that class.

People are thus subject insofar as they find themselves expending labor-power within the "division of labor" which are pre-given... which do not necessarily correspond to their abilities or interests.

They find themselves working "piecemeal" -- utterly dependent on the whim of the capitalist class -- who by virtue of their class characteristics, own the means of production, thus the labor and products of labor-power -- on weather they will be able to fed, cloth and shelter themselves or others.

What is the answer to this contradiction? How will the workers gain what is naturally theirs? How will the human species become human again?

Through the direct overthrow of capital and the "adjunct" ruling class.

By taking -- collectively -- the control of the means of production, and thus life itself!

[RevolutionaryLeftist]

The road to communism is totalitarianism. History has told us that totalitarianism is not the road to the perfect communist state.

Communism is never totalitarianism. You must be thinking of Stalinism and Leninism.

[t_wolves_fan]

On the contrary, it assumes our needs and wants will be fulfilled through an advanced and open means of production, that we will be so free that we can create the things we want if we so desire them. We can create them freely without thinking about "profit margins" or "demand" or other such market nonsense. It is production itself which is placed in the hands of the people, and thus it will always be fulfilling of their needs and desires.

Uhhhh...Sherlock....aren't such market nonsense terms like "demand", and "our needs and wants" basically the same thing?

And second, if people are free to produce anything and everything they demand, won't that require quite a run on the world's resources?


Also on the contrary, it assumes all people will want to be something better and all people will want to improve themselves and thus denies no one of this right. As a free society it creates the TRUE freedom, both materially and immaterially to do this. Capitalist society only gives this freedom to those who can afford it.

See the question above about resources.

[RevolucioN NoW]

Uhhhh...Sherlock....aren't such market nonsense terms like "demand", and "our needs and wants" basically the same thing?

No, people in a communist society would not "need" nor "want" a ferrari or other such needlessly expensive vehicles, however in a capitalistic society there is "demand" for them.


And second, if people are free to produce anything and everything they demand, won't that require quite a run on the world's resources?

Capitalism at this point produces countless useless commodities that people "demand", and there seem to be enough resources. Why in a communist society, where the only goods manufactured are those that people actually need, would resources become a problem?

[(R)evolution of the mind]

No, people in a communist society would not "need" nor "want" a ferrari or other such needlessly expensive vehicles, however in a capitalistic society there is "demand" for them.


People might very well want a ferrari, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, if something takes lots of labour and natural resources to produce, and isn't something that is truely needed by anyone, people might insist on sharing such luxuries. It should also be noted that a lot of the price of something like a ferrari is air. After design phase, patent costs and so on, it can't cost much more to produce than any other decent car. Those particular capitalists have simply decided to sell only small amounts of them at a high price to other wealthy people. Under communism, after the design has been done, it would not be a problem to produce everyone the car of their liking, given that some car is going to be produced anyway. Petrol and the practicability of ferraris and the like is a completely different issue then..

[RevolucioN NoW]

Petrol and the practicability of ferraris and the like is a completely different issue then..

Exactly comrade, Ferraris are uneccessary to a communist society, they seat very few people, guzzle fuel, and are also quite expensive to manufacture (though as you say, the sale price is inflated, like most comodities, to an extraordinary degree)

I dont think that a commune will bother producing ferraris when other vehicles can be made much more cheaply, and the allure of such a vehicle will dimish after the revolution.

[Essential Insignificance]

It's quite complicated to establish whether or not such "excessive" and "undue" objects will be produced in a communist society.

Chances are some will drift in to non-existence... while others will remain being produced.

Let's remember that just because you're a communist -- doesn't mean you have to "despise" the luxuries which modern day technology can construct rather effortlessly and swiftly.

Do I think "sumptuousness" and "speedy" cars will be produced in a communist society?

Most probably.

Maybe they will be shared collectively -- once a year for a week, you get the opportunity to drive a "splendid" car around.

Let us remember that society as a whole will dictate what is produced -- if everyone wants to produce luxury cars, and everyone wants such a car -- then in turn, production will begin.

You have the choice!