My personal beliefs

[Dark Leth]

First of all, if my beliefs are not welcome, very well then. Just tell me, and I shall leave.

For a long time, I was a very strong Communist. However, over time, I began to see some various good out of non-Communist ideals. I henceforth came up with my own pseudo-Communist/Capitalist economical ideaology.

The state, which is run by a council of elected officials, own all the industries and utilities, as within Communism. Then, for each industry, the workers elect a central leader to help go through and formulate guidelines and design plans for the company. However, instead of having 1 state-run industry per sector, I suggest haveing two or three. They would share, but at the same time compete. I have noticed, that when in a race, that us humans tend to realise the full potential of our various strengths, and utilise them to our fullest potential. Therefore, by creating democratic industries that compete, we can cerate better goods for all of humanity, yet still fufill that need for competition. However, if the need does subside, we can fuse the industries back together.

[More Fire for the People]

When you started talking about communism having a state, that just proved you weren't a very well educated communist.

Communism has no state because it has been withered away, it evolves from socialism.

And your idea sounds something like "market socialism".

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Hey dude, that sounds great to me. You seem to be describing a form of market socialism, where a form of lax competition is kept, but not all out competition, and certainly not private ownership of large companies with many employees and so forth. That is what I believe to be the most effective to bring about any kind of change while maintaining the the quality of products that people enjoy having, you're not alone.

There is nothing wrong with that. This site has people of many different veins of socialism, anarchism, marxist-leninism, or what have you. Good to have you aboard.

TGOW

[More Fire for the People]

It's basically fascism except instead of one corporation ruling one sector of the economy, two or three do and the leaders of the corporation are elected.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

It's basically fascism except instead of one corporation ruling one sector of the economy, two or three do and the leaders of the corporation are elected.

Umm, not really. Fascism has large corporations that are still owned by private people ... so private property. That is called capitalism ... however, those companies have to produce what the state wants them to, or else lose their company. It is the socializing of the individual and not the socializing of the means of production.

No need to call anyone a fascist.

TGOW

[Dark Leth]

Yeah, I'm such a fascist. Note, I said I used to be a hard-liner.

When I referred to state, I meant it as an entity filled with a populace. I did not mean that it had a certain state of organisation set forth under an ill-gained or democratic leader or leaders.

I'm sorry for the confusion.

TGOW - Ah, thanks for the proper term. Do you have any reading material of which I could read that would enchance my understanding?

[(R)evolution of the mind]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 2 2005, 12:35 AM
I have noticed, that when in a race, that us humans tend to realise the full potential of our various strengths, and utilise them to our fullest potential. Therefore, by creating democratic industries that compete, we can cerate better goods for all of humanity, yet still fufill that need for competition. However, if the need does subside, we can fuse the industries back together.
Bullshit. There are two types of competition: 1) win or vanish competition and 2) friendly cooperative competition. The first kind serves no good, and capitalist economy is an example of it. This kind of competition just serves to make people find an as economically safe position in society as possible. What really drives people to create new things is competition of type 2, them wanting to gain respect from their peers and so on. The free software movement is an example where this kind of competition is prevalent; people work on their own projects, and share results with everyone, occasionally borrowing ideas and code from "competing" projects. The fact that the movement can produce very good software -- with most people working on their spare time -- is infact very relavant to future communist society where all workplaces would work on this principle; people truely wanting to provide a good product or service, and not just a shoddy one with huge profits. In the free software movement

Likewise, professional sports are of the unhealthy type 1, while normal people getting together to play a game of something is of type 2, and serves to maintain their health rather than to destroy it.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

TGOW - Ah, thanks for the proper term. Do you have any reading material of which I could read that would enchance my understanding?

Yea, try Alec Nove's "The Economics of a Feasible Socialism." It was written in 1982, so a bit dated, but that does not really take away from his ideas. That is basically what turned me around from being something of a naive idealist.

Sorry, I can't think of anything else off the top of my head. I know of several at my library but I haven't read them as of yet, I don't have that much time. But I'm sure there are much more, check online I guess, and maybe you could give me some sites that do too.

TGOW

[abeyface]

Some of you guys are too caught up filing and definitions rather than logically critiqing this guys' opinion. I do disagree with the original poster because he does not understand what makes capitalism "competitive". firms find new and innovative ways of cutting costs and becoming more efficient because they are in constant competition for the consumers money. In communism money basically becomes obsolete so there is no fear, what will happen to a firm if they lose or fall behind, nothing they will still live the same as anyone else.

[abeyface]

Originally posted by ®evolution of the mind+Apr 1 2005, 10:02 PM--> (®evolution of the mind @ Apr 1 2005, 10:02 PM)
Dark [email protected] 2 2005, 12:35 AM
I have noticed, that when in a race, that us humans tend to realise the full potential of our various strengths, and utilise them to our fullest potential. Therefore, by creating democratic industries that compete, we can cerate better goods for all of humanity, yet still fufill that need for competition. However, if the need does subside, we can fuse the industries back together.
Bullshit. There are two types of competition: 1) win or vanish competition and 2) friendly cooperative competition. The first kind serves no good, and capitalist economy is an example of it. This kind of competition just serves to make people find an as economically safe position in society as possible. What really drives people to create new things is competition of type 2, them wanting to gain respect from their peers and so on. The free software movement is an example where this kind of competition is prevalent; people work on their own projects, and share results with everyone, occasionally borrowing ideas and code from "competing" projects. The fact that the movement can produce very good software -- with most people working on their spare time -- is infact very relavant to future communist society where all workplaces would work on this principle; people truely wanting to provide a good product or service, and not just a shoddy one with huge profits. In the free software movement

Likewise, professional sports are of the unhealthy type 1, while normal people getting together to play a game of something is of type 2, and serves to maintain their health rather than to destroy it. [/b]
Dont you think though that it will be too expensive to distribute a new invention. That is why we need type 1 in order to gradually drive the pricces down so everyone can afford what was invented by the type 2 people.

[redstar2000]

"Market Socialism"? Bah!

"Market Socialism" -- Are We "For Sale"? (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083079914&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 04:49 AM
Dont you think though that it will be too expensive to distribute a new invention.
How when capital does not exist under communism?

[The Grapes of Wrath]

How when capital does not exist under communism?

I realize that this is not the attempt of this thread but I can't help but think of this in terms of almost all threads pertaining to communism. I'm not making this argument in regard to any negative reponses I have gotten for my ideas, it is simply an observation and a suggestions.

For starters, communism is so out there, it is so beyond us that all we can do is think of neat and shiny things that "will" happen, or are "going to happen. The truth is ... we have no idea what will, what won't and what is going to happen in communism. All we have are wild guesses and shots in the dark.

If any of you have read (and with some disdain I'm sure) any of my previous replies or threads you will notice my emphasis on socialism. Socialism, while also a shot in the dark, can practically be formed today, tomorrow, next week, or whenever. It is a real thing that we need to grab a hold onto and something we need to at least be thinking about, not the "pipe-dreams" of communism.

We can lay around and dream all kinds of dreams about the greatness of communism, but I just think that socialism cannot be discounted. It needs to be thoroughly thought out as well, and realistically so. People do not act altruistically, they do not wish to work hard for the same wages as those who work poorly, they do not have a concept of the "general will" (which I don't think exists anyway), they think on the here and now, they want and need incentive, they want high quality material things, they want cheap prices, they want a choice in their products, they want and they want and they do and they do, and they think and they think. I, of course, have no idea what all these things are, I will not pretend to be an expert on society and people, but these are things I have observed.

So, let's cut the crap. Communism is so far out there that we can all but dismiss it, a sort of heaven on earth, or a far away distant utopian planet where all of our "wildest dreams will come true." It works best as a point to work towards, but will it exist? Well, that is up to debate I'm sure, for, when do you know that you have reached communism? ... I guess I'll look for the checkered flag that is sure to be there. In the meantime, let's concentrate on issues and ideas that may be useful tomorrow or the next day.

But again, what do I know? and who am I to talk?

Sorry for hijacking the board, but I feel that it is important to express this idea.

TGOW

[(R)evolution of the mind]

For starters, communism is so out there, it is so beyond us that all we can do is think of neat and shiny things that "will" happen, or are "going to happen. The truth is ... we have no idea what will, what won't and what is going to happen in communism. All we have are wild guesses and shots in the dark.


We do infact have quite reasonable guesses based on factual evidence what might happen, at least in the anarchist literature. But I at least do not infact really care what exactly happens and what will be the exact organisation of society then. What these informed guesses and evidence mainly serve is to paint a picture of a possible future society for those not yet convinced of the possibility that things could be different.

I do agree that communism/anarchy is quite far off, perhaps centuries or more, but I also do not think that people need any specific will towards such organisation of society, to be more perfect people or anything. Good things will happen the moment the bulk of people decide to stop being slaves, stop listening to their bosses and other wannabe rulers. That is a necessary and sufficient condition for a future egalitarian society to ever form and to live for more than a day. What exact form it takes is of lesser importance than the rise of this class consciousness and rejection of authority.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The Grapes of Wrath
We can lay around and dream all kinds of dreams about the greatness of communism, but I just think that socialism cannot be discounted. It needs to be thoroughly thought out as well, and realistically so. People do not act altruistically, they do not wish to work hard for the same wages as those who work poorly, they do not have a concept of the "general will" (which I don't think exists anyway), they think on the here and now, they want and need incentive, they want high quality material things, they want cheap prices, they want a choice in their products, they want and they want and they do and they do, and they think and they think. I, of course, have no idea what all these things are, I will not pretend to be an expert on society and people, but these are things I have observed.

So, people "are" like "this"...and we should devise a social order that will "fit".

You know that even if these generalizations were "true", they say nothing about what people will be "like" under different historical conditions.

Even a casual reading of history suggests that humans behave very differently in revolutionary eras than they do in periods of reaction -- like the one we live in now.

In my opinion, what appears to you to be "so far out there" will someday be widely considered plain common sense.

You are like a merchant or banker in 1600CE...declaring that what's really needed is "a more rational aristocracy".

You sound "perfectly reasonable" for the present period...and before this century is over, you will look very foolish indeed.

IF Marx was right.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Dark Leth]

Wow, I'm so glad for the warm response.

The one thing that I've ntoed that is prevalent among us left-wingers is the bickering over smaller nuances in the various philosophies. Aren't we all fighting the same corruption? By arguing with our selves, how are we achieving the "combined" goal we share? Although we may find different forms of Communism, Socialism, or Anarchism more appealing, we are striving for a similar goal.

We should not be fighting each other; rather, we should continually campaign against the anti-humantiarian forces that propel the disgusting world-wide economy.

But then again, I'm some crazy "right-wing" socialist.

[resisting arrest with violence]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 1 2005, 09:35 PM
First of all, if my beliefs are not welcome, very well then. Just tell me, and I shall leave.

For a long time, I was a very strong Communist. However, over time, I began to see some various good out of non-Communist ideals. I henceforth came up with my own pseudo-Communist/Capitalist economical ideaology.

The state, which is run by a council of elected officials, own all the industries and utilities, as within Communism. Then, for each industry, the workers elect a central leader to help go through and formulate guidelines and design plans for the company. However, instead of having 1 state-run industry per sector, I suggest haveing two or three. They would share, but at the same time compete. I have noticed, that when in a race, that us humans tend to realise the full potential of our various strengths, and utilise them to our fullest potential. Therefore, by creating democratic industries that compete, we can cerate better goods for all of humanity, yet still fufill that need for competition. However, if the need does subside, we can fuse the industries back together.
You need to read The State and Revolution by Lenin

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Dark Leth
We should not be fighting each other...

Unity on the "Left"? (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082988280&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Dark Leth]

Ah, a quick and interesting read, if I may say so myself. I entirely agree with your point.

If we are not united, I can handle that. There are, sadly, some of us who continually attack other left-wing believers mroe than we address the current issues glancing at the forefront. As reckless buisness expands, exploiting millions of under-paid hard workers, who may sweat for hours with bleak hope of coming out "ahead", we argue over trivial matters such as whether you havew a central commerce department, or smaller, strategised one. Why not deal with those later, and concentrate on the problems the worker faces today?

[abeyface]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 2 2005, 05:04 PM
Wow, I'm so glad for the warm response.

The one thing that I've ntoed that is prevalent among us left-wingers is the bickering over smaller nuances in the various philosophies. Aren't we all fighting the same corruption? By arguing with our selves, how are we achieving the "combined" goal we share? Although we may find different forms of Communism, Socialism, or Anarchism more appealing, we are striving for a similar goal.

We should not be fighting each other; rather, we should continually campaign against the anti-humantiarian forces that propel the disgusting world-wide economy.

But then again, I'm some crazy "right-wing" socialist.
How can we unite if we dont even know what we are uniting under. The truth is communism has failed. Capitalism also has failed. We need something, and by using dialectics we can better understand the way other humans feel on certain issues, and even learn about the economy from eachother.

So when you say "bickering" i look at it as a healthy educational conversation among revolutionary brothers.

[NovelGentry]

We need something, and by using dialectics we can better understand the way other humans feel on certain issues, and even learn about the economy from eachother.

Well get crackin' and tell us what the dialectic comes up with.

[Dark Leth]

Exactly. It has lead to one thing - nothing. I have not seen a useful fruitation of the various arguments over smal ideological differences in the multitudes of Communism. Why? We must worry about such small differences when the time is right.

As of now, we must go against the forces we feel that are hurting the world. For me, personally, it would be very large multinationals which exploit foreign workers - For you, it could be all of capitalism.