Communism supress freedoms

[symtoms_of_humanity]

Communism seems to supress more freedoms than it creates(socialism included) because you don't have the freedom to trade, you can't sell, workers are the same, and the govornment persecutes the upper class, such as in China during the revolution many people where stood infront of crowds and mocked and spit on and killed, so it seems to me communism supresses more than it creates

[Reds]

Capitalism suppress creativty and freedom of thought which many people in the U$ may think this is not true but comrades in the US look around you and comrades in other nations that have the material abilty study life in the United states I say true freedom is a Fair Trade for a simple bourgeoisie freedom. (Hey I answerd the quistion i asked earlier.)

[JKP]

Communism has never existed.

People will be more free than ever before with communism.

[Reds]

Good point I was thinking more about socialism.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

Yea its never existed, but neither has true capitalism, and things have been carried out to TRY and create a communist command economy, and the results where devistating, what incentive does a person have to work for, when they will get the same results whether they work harder or less, its creates lazyness, and if so, why would anybody do the dirty jobs, like sewer cleanings, shelf stocking, soot cleaners, and the such

[JKP]

Communism doesn't have a command economy.

Apparantly you don't know the most basic things about communism.

But let's change that.




Read this:
http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.ph...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

And this:
http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.ph...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 02:06 AM
Yea its never existed, but neither has true capitalism, and things have been carried out to TRY and create a communist command economy, and the results where devistating, what incentive does a person have to work for, when they will get the same results whether they work harder or less, its creates lazyness, and if so, why would anybody do the dirty jobs, like sewer cleanings, shelf stocking, soot cleaners, and the such
Marx originally called "capitalism" "bourgoise society". In this sense capitalism has existed (wheater "true" to certain specific model or not) because there are many examples of societies where the laws and government are set up to allow the rule of the borgoise.

Socialism and communism have never really existed because exept for a few short-lived examples, there hasn't yet been a society run by workers (or a classless one, communism, for that matter).

This is the difference between when a marxists says "the USSR isn't real communism" and when an Ayn Randite says "the US isn't real capitalism". When a marxist says this, it isn't because they disagree with the policies or governences of the USSR, they disagree with the structrue of that society. When an Objectivist or Libertarian says the "US isn't capitalist", they don't want a revolution, to make it capitalist and put business back in charge, they want to replace one type of capitalism for another type (i.e. they same system but with policies of less government involvement in the economy).

Bourgoise rights are better than no rights or a caste system or something, but the rights are meaningless in a material sense. Having free speech dosn't protect you from being fired and even with free speech you can't just tell off your boss without expecting some kind of reprocussion.

If workers run society democratically and controll production thmselves, then no induvidual (like a landlord or employer) can restrict your access to the necissities of life and so then we can have much more meaningful freedom.

As for laziness... again few people here advocate they straw-man socialism of "an unaccountable government that takes over production (on behalf of workers) and then pays everyone the same arbitray wage. What most here argue for is worker power.

So when we are in charge of our neighborhoods and places of work, what incentive will there be to do things? Well do you like to have trash sitting around your house and on your street? If not, then in a worker society you'll have to get together with your neighbors and figure out a way to take trash away. Since no one like doing this, then we would also want to figure out ways to make sure that it is as easy as possible and make sure that not just certain people are stuck doing unpleasant jobs full-time all the time.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 02:06 AM
what incentive does a person have to work for, when they will get the same results whether they work harder or less, its creates lazyness, and if so, why would anybody do the dirty jobs, like sewer cleanings, shelf stocking, soot cleaners, and the such
What incentive do people have for working hard or less now? If you work hard in your office or factory job, you get the same wage from your boss as before and now the boss always expects you to maintain and even increase that level of productivity. The only incentive for not working less, generally, is so that your boss dosn't get mad at you or fire you... this is a negative incentive.

Think about capitalism and socialism as a fishing boat:

On a capitalist fishing boat you have one captain (boss) and you and 4 other fishermen. The ship sails into the bay for 8 hours a day no matter how many fish you catch. What's your incentive to work harder than you have to? You are alienated from the results of your labor, so if you catch 20 fish or 200, you get paid the same wage whereas your boss has just increased his profits by 180 fish. If you don't catch at least 20 fish, then you get fired. If everyone is catching 200 fish, then maybe the market gets saturated and the boss decides he only needs 3 fishermen to catch enough fish to make money when he sells them at the fish market; so 2 of you get fired so that your boss can save on labor costs.

A communist fishing boat would be more like 5 of your friends going out on a boat you all owned. So since you would all benifit from the combined efforts, you would have an incentive to do a good job. If everyone was catching 200 fish, and you only needed 500 to have enough for people in your town, you could stop and go home early when you reached 500 fish. You would also want to divide up chores on the boat equally since a clean boat would make all of your lives easier aestetically and in your ability to catch fish.

[Hiero]

Commmunism supress bourgeois freedom and creates proletariat freedoms.



freedom to trade,

You have freedom from capitalist trade. This is replaced with freedom in socialist trade which is aimed for need and not maxium profit.


workers are the same

In what way?


and the govornment persecutes the upper class,

So?


as in China during the revolution many people where stood infront of crowds and mocked and spit on and killed

This was most common in the cultural revolution.

During the first revolution which was one aimed at the economic base, peasnats were able to confront the feudal lords which had explioted. Thoose who resisted were killed, or thoose who had commite great crimes were executed.

In the cultural revolution, this was aimed at the superstructure. It was lead by students, and most student lead movements are too radical for their own good. In this case the students lead a legitimate movement into a witch hunt. If you read Mao's and Maoist works, they are humanterian in their aproach of reactionaries.


what incentive does a person have to work for, when they will get the same results whether they work harder or less, its creates lazyness, and if so, why would anybody do the dirty jobs, like sewer cleanings, shelf stocking, soot cleaners, and the such

This has never been a real problem in the socialist countries. The main problems in building socialism are ideological revisionism and lack of infastructure

Other then that you are absolutely correct, Communism supress capitalism. There is not liberal approach to capitalism, we can not stop our attack on the capitalist based on bouegeois notions of freedom.

[KC]

Communism seems to supress more freedoms than it creates(socialism included) because you don't have the freedom to trade

You have the freedom to trade. It would just be pointless:
"I'll trade you my computer for your Ipod Nano."
"No, I can just go pick a computer up at the store for free, why would I trade?"


you can't sell

You can't sell in a capitalist society if nobody is willing to buy. The same holds true for a communist society, except for the fact that nobody will want to buy anything ever.


workers are the same

I don't even know what you mean by this one.


and the govornment persecutes the upper class, such as in China during the revolution many people where stood infront of crowds and mocked and spit on and killed, so it seems to me communism supresses more than it creates

In a communist society there is no upper class. China was socialist.


Yea its never existed, but neither has true capitalism

True capitalism has existed, in the marxist definition of the word. We use the marxist definition, and according to that definition it exists now. You could use a different definition for capitalism, but don't bring it around here because it isn't the one we are talking about.


and things have been carried out to TRY and create a communist command economy, and the results where devistating, what incentive does a person have to work for, when they will get the same results whether they work harder or less, its creates lazyness

In a communist society people will do their job because the hours will be much shorter and they will be able to get whatever job they want. Education will be free so they can do whatever they want. They have more freedom.


and if so, why would anybody do the dirty jobs, like sewer cleanings, shelf stocking, soot cleaners, and the such

There are numerous answers that answer your question completely. Job rotation, Collective cooperation (people wanting to keep their community clean), etc...

[tatu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:12 AM
Communism seems to supress more freedoms than it creates(socialism included) because you don't have the freedom to trade, you can't sell, workers are the same, and the govornment persecutes the upper class, such as in China during the revolution many people where stood infront of crowds and mocked and spit on and killed, so it seems to me communism supresses more than it creates
I don't mean to sound sarcastic or patronising but.. I really do suggest that you read The Communist Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm) or re-read it if you haven't already done so.

"In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself" - Marx & Engels.

[sanpal]

Communism is based on non-market economic system, thus exchange of results of labour between people will not be using "trading" but to use "communist mode
of production" (the system of "placing an order - performing the order").

If to introduce communism into practice on the whole society (it's unimportant in a separate country or in the world) in a revolutionary way (by violent acts) , then the greater or lesser part of society would not have any freedom to trade. Bourgeois relations would be suppressed but it is not disappeared and it presume further struggle against "underground trade".

The true freedom lies in freedom of choice when the society could be organized out of two economic systems, using both capitalist mode of reproduction and communist mode of reproduction, i.e. out of two non-miscible economic sectors where an individual has freedom of choice to trade or not to trade, a proletarian has freedom of choice to become employed on wages or to become a member of commune without any exploitation .


Structure of such kind of Proletarian State could consist of three economic
sectors:

1) market economic sector of traditional capitalism but under control of
proletarian government (tax, priorities, etc);

2) market economic sector of state capitalism (where the State is owner);

3) non-market economic sector (where the members of commune are owners)
In that sector the means of production are handed to communars (to members of commune) by proletarian government without compensation.

[Livetrueordie]

all i have to say is ... restricted

[A Man of no Nation]

I believe in Che´s theory of the "Socialist Man"

It is an unselfish person who makes daily sacrifices for the common good of the people; not for greed, not for money, not for more land and titles, but for a better future for everyone against imperialism. You work harder because you want to create a better world for your people. If money is on your mind, then you can move to the United States and exploit other nations for your god (money).

Too bad Che´s ideals and ethics died with him.

(I live in Ecuador and I see kids everyday wearing Che shirts but they do not know anything about him...it is just a fasion.)

I love the example about the fishing boat by the way.

later chicos

-A man of no nation

[CCJ]

Originally posted by A Man of no [email protected] 16 2005, 08:18 PM
Too bad Che´s ideals and ethics died with him.
An idea can never die. It may become less popular, but, when it seems like no one believes in it anymore, someone will rediscover it.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

But to think all this is to belive man is good and not greedy or lustfull, when it is what human beings are, there is always something somebody has that another will want and try to get, it can be a product, a person someone is dating, or anything, people are greedy(i am just saying this, I don't think i should be restricted because it is something I discuss, I am somewhat of a communist but I like to be objective and get both sides of what I am looking at)

[CCJ]

Like I said in the thread "Could anarcho-communsim even work? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42934)":


I find that human nature is shaped more by the environment we grow up in and the belief that we hold than any inherent propensities in human genetics. For example, my school has these things called "work camps" on which we are required to on in order to graduate. On a work camp one travels to another place and helps a community. Each work camp must make a presentation to the rest of the school about their experience. One workcamp to one South American country (it may have been Puerto Rico, but I'm not sure) said that the community they went to help did not understand the concept of private property. When one student asked "whose car is that?" a person responded, "what do you mean?" and after a bit of discussion, the students managed to find out that the car belonged to the entire community.

This is not the only exception to the "rule" of the commonly-portrayed human nature. Throughout history - early Christian communities, the Diggers in England in the late 17th century, the anarchist federation in the Ukraine in the early 20th century, the anarchist Spain in the 1930s, the list goes on and on - people have risen up against oppression - and won.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

It could not have been PR, I have a friend there, its like the US there

[CCJ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 03:33 AM
It could not have been PR, I have a friend there, its like the US there
Hmm...perphaps. But you get my point, yea?

[chilcru]

In the transition from capitalism to communism, society will pass through a historical stage characterized by the DOP. The main function of the DOP is 1) to suppress the remnants of the exploiting classes primarily via the gradual socialization of the means of production and 2) to install a new culture befitting the new society. These tasks entail suppression of bourgeois freedoms and patterns of thought and can be carried out only by a dictatorship of the proletariat. Hence, the transition to communism must necessarily pass through a stage of intense struggle against remnants of the bourgeoisie in which the proletariat will have to use its state powers. Once the bourgeiosie is eliminated, the proletarian state withers away and only then can we have genuine freedoms.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

Yes, but the state never withers away, someone in power will always find some other subversive enemy no matter what, so the people live in fear of this, and will want the people to remain in power to "protect" them from what ever it is the leaders of the system at the time say the threat is. And by a certain time all the original fighters die, and then the new crop belives whatever is told and accept a leader no matter what, as in the Soviet Union, and in China's Cultural Revolution, all dedicated to Stalin and Mao, not the true communist cause

[KC]

Yes, but the state never withers away, someone in power will always find some other subversive enemy no matter what, so the people live in fear of this, and will want the people to remain in power to "protect" them from what ever it is the leaders of the system at the time say the threat is. And by a certain time all the original fighters die, and then the new crop belives whatever is told and accept a leader no matter what, as in the Soviet Union, and in China's Cultural Revolution, all dedicated to Stalin and Mao, not the true communist cause

Who is this "someone in power"? The Dictatorship of the Proletariat means just that; the dictatorship of society by the proletarian class as a whole. There is nobody that fits the description of "someone in power" as power is relative, and since all proletarians will have equal power, this situation will never come up.

[enigma2517]

On a capitalist fishing boat you have one captain (boss) and you and 4 other fishermen. The ship sails into the bay for 8 hours a day no matter how many fish you catch. What's your incentive to work harder than you have to? You are alienated from the results of your labor, so if you catch 20 fish or 200, you get paid the same wage whereas your boss has just increased his profits by 180 fish. If you don't catch at least 20 fish, then you get fired. If everyone is catching 200 fish, then maybe the market gets saturated and the boss decides he only needs 3 fishermen to catch enough fish to make money when he sells them at the fish market; so 2 of you get fired so that your boss can save on labor costs.

Ok, I have to play devil's advocate here. What about jobs where you earn a commission? Or how about the fact that even though you still earn the same wage as others temporarily you can be promoted to a better paying position by harder. Sure, maybe you only have to catch 20, and a lot of people will choose to do that, but if you do in fact catch 200 and nobody else does, won't this reflect well on you?

Don't get me wrong, just because you can scale a hierarchy doesn't justify it, but I'm still wondering what kind of response you have to this argument.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

The person in power always seem to arise. The "leader" of the revolution, just as happend with Lenin, which led to Stalin, and then Stalin abolishing any other points of views, Mao became the one and only leader, setting up for whomever came along after(can't remeber his name right now) and after Stalin came Khrushev, and so on, this "dicatorship of the proliteriat" always becomes "well the workers aren't educated enough so we need leaders to step up, and become the next beuracrats(sp) but under a different tune"

[KC]

The person in power always seem to arise. The "leader" of the revolution, just as happend with Lenin, which led to Stalin, and then Stalin abolishing any other points of views, Mao became the one and only leader, setting up for whomever came along after(can't remeber his name right now) and after Stalin came Khrushev, and so on, this "dicatorship of the proliteriat" always becomes "well the workers aren't educated enough so we need leaders to step up, and become the next beuracrats(sp) but under a different tune"

If you studied these movements closely you would clearly see the causes of their demise. These situations in no way prove (and are pretty much unrelated to) the fact that "someone in power" will rise and stop the revolution.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:19 AM

On a capitalist fishing boat you have one captain (boss) and you and 4 other fishermen. The ship sails into the bay for 8 hours a day no matter how many fish you catch. What's your incentive to work harder than you have to? You are alienated from the results of your labor, so if you catch 20 fish or 200, you get paid the same wage whereas your boss has just increased his profits by 180 fish. If you don't catch at least 20 fish, then you get fired. If everyone is catching 200 fish, then maybe the market gets saturated and the boss decides he only needs 3 fishermen to catch enough fish to make money when he sells them at the fish market; so 2 of you get fired so that your boss can save on labor costs.

Ok, I have to play devil's advocate here. What about jobs where you earn a commission? Or how about the fact that even though you still earn the same wage as others temporarily you can be promoted to a better paying position by harder. Sure, maybe you only have to catch 20, and a lot of people will choose to do that, but if you do in fact catch 200 and nobody else does, won't this reflect well on you?

Don't get me wrong, just because you can scale a hierarchy doesn't justify it, but I'm still wondering what kind of response you have to this argument.
Well there are certaintly many things that bosses do in order to create "positive" incentives to work harder (including comission or promotion and so on) and my fishing boat comparison was grossly simplified. But never the less, commission or promotion may alleviate the alinenation felt by a few induviduals workers, but it dosn't solve the underlying problems.

THese things are a temprorary fix and do make people work harder like a carrot on a stick; especially in conditions where workers feel they have no other options like where there is a weak or nonexistant union presence.

Bosses also try things like profit shareing to get rid of labor alienation to try and make the worker feel as though he/she has a stake in the business. But profit-shareing often comes at the expense of shifting money from employee benifits to "stock options" and commission comes at the expense of a lower hourly wage. And none of these things change the basic fact that people don't have any control over their own places of work. People can give 110% for their company and still find thmselves not being promoted or even fired. These conditions create demoralization and "laziness" in workers.

Wal-Mart, for example, is famous for promising people promotions for working free overtime and then wal-mart never goes through with its end of the deal. It can get away with this because it is rabbidly nonunion in the US so workers who feel screwed-over quit rather than fight back and wal-mart has sheets and sheets of other poor people waiting for thoes jobs.

I'm not sure if my answer adresses the argument you were getting at comrade. So, if not, please correct me.

[FreePalestine-SmashIsrael]

I recomend reading german ideology, as well as economic and philosophic manuscripts of marx and much more, read those that actually formulated it, ive read some redstar and its his opinion so read what communism is, because you read the critique of aspects of it.