Can you clear up my questions on communism?

[Toothlessjoe]

I feel that this would be better suited here, as I never got the response I wanted in the learning forum. Again I'll state, I failed all my high school exams 2 years back now, so don't get too complicated :P. Or at least explain it well!


I understand communism to be an economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. I've also come to believe that it doesn't equate to a utopian society, where everyone is equal, or that everyone shares :rolleyes:. I also think at this point in time, that communism won't meet the needs of everyone - just like capitalism doesn't, but more people would be better off. As in, everyone having a "Middle class" - "upper-middle class" lifestyle/quality of life under communism. I've come to see that not everyone would be able to have a mansion and a sports car. Or would nobody be able to have such things?

A few thing on top of those above, need to be cleared up for me though:

1) Capitalism is the final mode of production(?), and as such most if not all developments and products would be produced under this stage, which then leads on to a socialist society, then onwards to the final society: communism?

Communism (in specific Marxism and its derivatives) is materialist in nature, correct? Marx did not describe what a communist society must be like in detail because that depended completely on the situations of the society itself. If I'm viewing it from a strictly Marxist perspective, then the above is more or less correct? Marx believed capitalism would ultimately run it's course, then to be replaced with the first stage of communism (what we call "socialism") and then with the last stage, being what we call "communism" right?

I am I to further understand though, that most communists are also Leninists in that they consider many of the concepts that Lenin brought to the forefront. Specifically, he showed that it would be possible to implement socialism without a long period of capitalism having taken place before hand? He considered Imperialism to be another stage of capitalism. Imperialism was basically a more global form of capitalism where exploitation was exported abroad right? Like he explains here:

"(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopoly capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed"

-- Lenin. 'Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism'.

Am I right in my understanding of this part of communism now?


2) I understand that goods/whatever are distributed according to ability in socialism, and according to need in communism? Does this mean as a doctor, I would have a greater choice of "goods" to choose from for my work? And vice versa? Socialism takes parts of capitalism, in that the distribution of wealth is still based on wages (at least initially), and you are paid based on the amount, type, and difficulty of work that you do. But; in communism, you are given that which you need. "Need" doesn't just mean food, water and shelter (as we often think of "need" with a context of survival), but exactly what society deems it necessary to have for accomplishing a set of goals or standards; be it a computer for every household for educational and entertainment purposes, et cetera. This is all correct yes?

But who actually decides that the road sweeper should get a computer for keeping a certain street tidy for a week, for example?


3) There's a whole range of goods and commodities available to us now. Take all the candy bars, games, movies and shampoos for example.There is no rule that prohibits X amount of games, or X amount of shampoos, or X amount of movies. If a selection is deemed necessary, then different products are made right? But what about the use of so many resources etc, and the work to make them all? Would people be able to justify this in our communist society where products are not made for a profit, but for communal use? Would there be as much choice in a communist society, or would there end up being a cliched "People's " to save the resources that could be used for something else? Would there be an educated committy to decide such things (the value of a resource)? How would it work?


4) Wouldn't people start swapping goods among themselves, as their own form of currency? What measures would be put in, and what possible consequences and counter measures would there be for this?

This is a question that can only be answered given a specific society itself right? There is no absolute resolution as far as I can see, but I want to know of some possible answers to it, but can find none. As far as I can think; If they start swapping items, then the root cause should be analyzed. We should question why they are doing so. Maybe there is a specific "need" that isn't being fulfilled. If that is the case, then the matter should be resolved; be it by fulfilling that need or some other measure. But [i]what measures could be put in place, this is what I want to know.


Apart from those what I also want to know is how would modern life (life as it is now) translate into communism? Would we still have the same freedom and care free attitudes now, or would we be punished for this? For example; I can choose not to work, and recieve benefit. I understand in communism, I would recieve nothing if I didn't contribute. Would I just be left to wither away? How does this work?

What about food franchises and so on, could I go to a subway, or a shop in my town for a burger? I myself see no reason why food franchises would be completely abolished; maybe diminished or restructured to have a more nutritious menu than they do now, but not completely done away with. But wouldn't people be going in there all the time, for "free eating". Shouldn't a limit be put on it? Who would decide this, if this was the case? What other cases could there also be? This also goes for similar shops, what happens to supermarkets?


And finally, how would housing be allocated? Obviously private property would be abolished so how would we decide who lived where? It would certainly be a slow process that begins in socialism. There is no need to immediately displace everyone the second that socialism or communism takes place in order to decide what housing is adequate for whom right? The main concern, I think, should be to first house everyone; taking care that nobody is homeless (at least not unwillingly so). But again, should a doctor be placed in a "better" house than the road sweep?

[EusebioScrib]

Hmmm you seem to be a little confused with some aspects here. I'll post my reply when I get home from work (11:30PM EST), which I'm about to be late for...

[Toothlessjoe]

Well, that would be the reason I am posting :P. I am not saying I am right. But I would like to be corrected so that I may progress.

[Connolly]

I've also come to believe that it doesn't equate to a utopian society, where everyone is equal, or that everyone shares .

No one is born equal. We all have different abilities and drawbacks. In a communist society, people are equal in relation to the mode of production, "economic equity".


I also think at this point in time, that communism won't meet the needs of everyone - just like capitalism doesn't, but more people would be better off. As in, everyone having a "Middle class" - "upper-middle class" lifestyle/quality of life under communism.

The reason an economic mode does not meet the needs of everyone is either due to production restrictions or a lack of technology. The capitalist system cannot meet the needs of most because of production restrictions. If you create too much of any one product and place it on the market, its value will fall (because the demand of those who can afford it will fall).

Capitalism does not produce things based on what is demanded by the people, but by what can be sold. Africa for example, is in demand of food. According to the WHO, we presently have the ability to produce enough food for 12 times the earths population, yet we dont. Here in Ireland tonnes of milk is poured down the gulley to maintain its value - yet it is damanded by many.

The communist mode of production would remove such production restrictions by the elimination of capital and private property. Things would be produced by actual demand, not by what can be sold. And we have that ability.


I've come to see that not everyone would be able to have a mansion and a sports car. Or would nobody be able to have such things?

The question is, are such things desirable or needed.

A sports car? for what?...........presently people use them for class distinction (since fast cars cannot be used for anything else and are quite impractical).

A Mansion, again, for what?................ just another class distinction - houses with too many rooms to visit in a lifetime :rolleyes:

Just as it eliminates the desire to want and accumilate capital, communism removes the desire to accumilate useless BHPs and bathrooms.

Also, although contrary to what I said above - whats stopping people from having sports cars?....................surely it cannot be the lack of ability to produce such cars. After all, when mobile phones came out - very few people had them. Its the same with all new things PS2s, Ipods etc.

Yet, after a few months on the market - they are dirt cheap.

The cost and "limited edition" is artificially infalted to create demand from those who can buy. Diamonds are at such a price do to the hoarding by its producers, 2million cars are kept in lockups in the USA to maintain prices.

We have the ability to produce "mansions" and "sports cars", just that it would be quite pointless under communism.


Capitalism is the final mode of production(?),

No. Socialism and communism are distinct modes of production in themselves. Modes of production are characterised by a combination of distinct features. Check out wikipedia for "mode of production".


and as such most if not all developments and products would be produced under this stage

No. It would be a mistake to believe communism will not develop humanity any further technologically than the capitalist system. Think of capitalism as a very good way of developing advancement, but restricted by itself to implementing it today, and collapsing when it gets to a certain point.

Products, well, no. Like above, much of whats produced under capitalism is either shit quality or pointless. Communism, I would imagine, will refine products to their bare requirements, while being sufficient. Cars under capitalism will have 0-60 in 1.20 seconds, top speed of 800kph - yet cant be used. Commmunism will have cars which fit the requirements. A bit cold really.! Thats probably a crap example.


Communism (in specific Marxism and its derivatives) is materialist in nature, correct?

Capitalism is materialist in nature. Communism is materialist in nature. Everything is materialist in nature. Materialism is a philosophy which explains our existance. Dont mix it up with the other definition of materialism - Madonna "Im a material girl" :lol: .


If I'm viewing it from a strictly Marxist perspective, then the above is more or less correct?

Yes. We cannot go into it in detail.

For example. I could give a very good prediction that Brazil would beat, oh, say, Iraq in a football match from looking at the way they have been playing recently and in the past. What I couldnt do is say exactly how they are going to do it, what time they are going to score and who will score.

Just like that, we can say that communism is probable (from historical example), but we cannot know how in detail it will unfold.

Leninists are another thing though - God like they are :o


Marx believed capitalism would ultimately run it's course, then to be replaced with the first stage of communism (what we call "socialism") and then with the last stage, being what we call "communism" right?

Yep. Many disagree though (anarchists), and there are many topics on this board in the past debating this.


I am I to further understand though, that most communists are also Leninists in that they consider many of the concepts that Lenin brought to the forefront.

Most communist parties today would be Leninist and Trotskyist, maybe not exactly following the lines.

It would be a mistake to believe they are correct because of numbers - look at christianity :o.

I am not a Leninist, I think its a load of rubbish to be honest.


Specifically, he showed that it would be possible to implement socialism without a long period of capitalism having taken place before hand?

No. he didnt show anything of the sort (unless you consider the soviet union socialist :huh: )

It was a complete failure to achieve socialism, capitalism though - a success..

Again, it comes down to the leninists actually knowing in detail what socialism is - they think they can implement it with their minority vanguard - but they actually dont know what they are doing :lol:


Imperialism was basically a more global form of capitalism where exploitation was exported abroad right?

Yes. Although some doubts have been shared about it being the final stage. I am neutral and incapable of sharing any worthy opinion on it.


I understand that goods/whatever are distributed according to ability in socialism, and according to need in communism?

I think the quote you take that from is "over rated" as a means of expressing what is meant.

I would imagine that goods would be shared according to need under both socialism and communism. There aint much difference between socialism and communism - except for the existance of the state and the former ruling class.


Does this mean as a doctor, I would have a greater choice of "goods" to choose from for my work?

Depending on developments, the choice of goods would remain the same - the availability of goods is what changes.


Socialism takes parts of capitalism, in that the distribution of wealth is still based on wages (at least initially), and you are paid based on the amount, type, and difficulty of work that you do.

I dont agree. IMO, both wages and private property are abolished. Other people may have other "interpretations".


But; in communism, you are given that which you need. "Need" doesn't just mean food, water and shelter (as we often think of "need" with a context of survival), but exactly what society deems it necessary to have for accomplishing a set of goals or standards;

I dont like the society deems necessary bit. What is available and producable will be deemed necessary.

People dont miss things they have never heard of nor have the ability to produce. They wouldnt be saying " I wish that was still produced".


But who actually decides that the road sweeper should get a computer for keeping a certain street tidy for a week, for example?

This comes down to the details of things - I cant give a solid answer.

Its almost like asking how will the factories be organised, how will decisions be made - we dont actually know. Some things we do, some things we dont.

Maybe someone else will give a reasonable answer to it though.


If a selection is deemed necessary, then different products are made right? But what about the use of so many resources etc, and the work to make them all? Would people be able to justify this in our communist society where products are not made for a profit, but for communal use?

The communist mode of production would require significant amounts of resources. We dont have it? improvise.

We can make electrical plugs made from gold - we dont because the gold aint there - we use something else. Humans have an excellent ability to adapt.

On the other hand, we have huge amounts of resources that just aint used. Agricultural land for example, people are starving.

Things I imagine would be justified using common sense. Car that goes underwater, flies, withstands core temperatures and uses 1500 times the amount of resources of a normal car - not justified - common sense is used.


Would there be as much choice in a communist society, or would there end up being a cliched "People's [Insert commodity]" to save the resources that could be used for something else?

Presently - there isnt much choice. Things are produced based on whats viably profitable. Communism on the otherhand, as I said, would require substantial resources in the first place. I think there would be more choice - I dont see why not.


Would there be an educated committy to decide such things (the value of a resource)? How would it work?

Distribution of resources? IMO, electronically.

Presently some supermarkets restock their shelves automatically when something is sold. they send out automatic order to distributer, distributer sends order to manufacturer, manufacturer sends order to raw materials etc etc. That way things are manufactured by whats in needed.

Educated committee? - dont know.


Wouldn't people start swapping goods among themselves, as their own form of currency? What measures would be put in, and what possible consequences and counter measures would there be for this?

People swapping goods would indicate scarcity of something. Necessities would not be scarce.

Communism is a higher mode of production, therefore, more of everything.

Swapping would occur with things that are not really used, or used once - something its not necessary for everyone to have.

Also, currency would mean private property. If I have money - its mine. If someone has a communal lawnmower - its not theirs to do what they like with it.


As far as I can think; If they start swapping items, then the root cause should be analyzed. We should question why they are doing so. Maybe there is a specific "need" that isn't being fulfilled.

The root cause is scarcity.

If I give a child a packet of crisps, his brother would want some too. They might swap, share and fight over it if I dont have another to give. The problem is solved by having "more".


Would we still have the same freedom and care free attitudes now, or would we be punished for this?

Punished by who? Laws, police, state and army are non existant.

Yes, we would be more care free and with more freedom.


For example; I can choose not to work, and recieve benefit

Yes.

People would work little or nothing.


I understand in communism, I would recieve nothing if I didn't contribute. Would I just be left to wither away? How does this work?

You would recieve if you didnt contribute.

The answer to these sorts of questions is that your material conditions will have changed. Your whole outlook on life and how you deal with yourself and people around you will be different.


What about food franchises and so on, could I go to a subway, or a shop in my town for a burger? I myself see no reason why food franchises would be completely abolished;

I actually dont know. I think franchises are a way to control and centralise capital. Since such needs would be abolished - maybe they will be too - I dont know though.


But wouldn't people be going in there all the time, for "free eating". Shouldn't a limit be put on it? Who would decide this, if this was the case? What other cases could there also be? This also goes for similar shops, what happens to supermarkets?

Again - scarcity is a terrible thing.

The concept of something being "free" depends on material conditions.

I have used this example before. If I plant an apple tree on a public street, people would flock to get the apples when they grow - because they are "free".

If I plant apple trees on every public street - the reaction obviously wouldnt be the same - the idea of them being somehow "available" and there for the grabbing would change.

Its exactly the same. All around us things are there to be taken. Seaweed for example, blackberries, wood, "air". Things are not flocked for because they are readily available. Only when something stops things fromj being produced is there a problem - capitalism.

If everything was readily available - there is no problem.


And finally, how would housing be allocated? Obviously private property would be abolished so how would we decide who lived where? It would certainly be a slow process that begins in socialism. There is no need to immediately displace everyone the second that socialism or communism takes place in order to decide what housing is adequate for whom right? The main concern, I think, should be to first house everyone; taking care that nobody is homeless (at least not unwillingly so). But again, should a doctor be placed in a "better" house than the road sweep?

I dont actually know the answer.

It all comes down to why people choose where.

Why do people choose to live beside the sea, why do they tend to be the richest?

If it was somehow fashionable and more expensive to live on the edge of a volcano or on top of big massive unclimbable mountains - what would be the attitude then.

If it was bourgeois to live in garden sheds, again, what would be the attitude.

People who are poor and live in small houses wnat big houses because of the various wants that makes them appealing, not because it would make them happier, not because they are better.

Working class people would like a nice Ferrari. Why? Its no use to them. It wouldnt make them happier. It unreliable. More expensive etc. etc.

Its the same with location - its all about the "image".

A classless society would remove the distinction between those who live by the sea and those who dont. Neither would be appealing.

Really though, I dont know.

No, a doctor would not get a better house than a road sweeper.



I hpe some of that makes sense, It abit rushed.

[EusebioScrib]

Well, that would be the reason I am posting tongue.gif. I am not saying I am right. But I would like to be corrected so that I may progress.

Oh of course! You definetly don't come off as the type who thinks he's all macho. We're here to help you learn.


I also think at this point in time, that communism won't meet the needs of everyone - just like capitalism doesn't, but more people would be better off. As in, everyone having a "Middle class" - "upper-middle class" lifestyle/quality of life under communism. I've come to see that not everyone would be able to have a mansion and a sports car. Or would nobody be able to have such things?

First, in regards to communism reaching a point of being obsolete. I don't see communism ever becoming obsolete. Our modes of productions change only because of inter-human struggle. Communism will bring an end to inter-human struggle. Communism is the most practical means of survival when man has an abundance. Our next struggle will be against something else (me thinks nature) so communism will probably remain, but other things will change. The mode of production will be the constant, something else will be the variable.

Second in regards to mansion and sports car. In Communism one won't feel any need to have a mansion or a sports car. When humans are lacking in something, they seek to find that something in something else. In our case it is control hence happiness. When we have no control over our life we loose happiness. So in order to become happy we try to control what we consume to make us happy. However in communism we still won't have control over everything (i.e. nature) so we will seek to find happiness in people instead of things because our realtions with people will not be obscured by anything.

This may seem a bit complex for a beginner, but I think you might get it. You seem good with it already, just in the wrong direction a bit.


1) Capitalism is the final mode of production(?), and as such most if not all developments and products would be produced under this stage, which then leads on to a socialist society, then onwards to the final society: communism?

No. There is no distinction between socialism and communism. It goes capitalism to communism. No in between bullshit.


Communism (in specific Marxism and its derivatives) is materialist in nature, correct? Marx did not describe what a communist society must be like in detail because that depended completely on the situations of the society itself. If I'm viewing it from a strictly Marxist perspective, then the above is more or less correct? Marx believed capitalism would ultimately run it's course, then to be replaced with the first stage of communism (what we call "socialism") and then with the last stage, being what we call "communism" right?

Yea Marx believed that, but who gives a fuck? Marxism is NOT a dogma. Marx got a lot wrong, and we need to point that out and explain why. Other than that you basically got it right. The most important thing is whoever makes the transition from capitalism to communism is who will decide what communism will look like. We only say communism is this or that because that seems the way it's heading and the most practical way. There isn't a doubt in my mind that it won't look like what we think it will now.


I am I to further understand though, that most communists are also Leninists in that they consider many of the concepts that Lenin brought to the forefront. Specifically, he showed that it would be possible to implement socialism without a long period of capitalism having taken place before hand? He considered Imperialism to be another stage of capitalism. Imperialism was basically a more global form of capitalism where exploitation was exported abroad right? Like he explains here:

BIG NO NO! No communist is a Leninist. Leninists are far from Marxists, they just pretend to be. Lenin = petty-bourgeois revolutionary. Study him, but basically everything he said (except for imperialism..well 3/4 of imperialism) was wrong.


2) I understand that goods/whatever are distributed according to ability in socialism, and according to need in communism? Does this mean as a doctor, I would have a greater choice of "goods" to choose from for my work? And vice versa? Socialism takes parts of capitalism, in that the distribution of wealth is still based on wages (at least initially), and you are paid based on the amount, type, and difficulty of work that you do. But; in communism, you are given that which you need. "Need" doesn't just mean food, water and shelter (as we often think of "need" with a context of survival), but exactly what society deems it necessary to have for accomplishing a set of goals or standards; be it a computer for every household for educational and entertainment purposes, et cetera. This is all correct yes?

First off, there is no distinciton between socialism and communism. It goes from capitalism into communism. Distribution based on need is correct. You decide what you need because there is such an abundance of everything, within limit of course.


But who actually decides that the road sweeper should get a computer for keeping a certain street tidy for a week, for example?

Street sweepers don't exist in communism. In communism human labor has been so accumulated into the means of production that there will be little or no need to "work" as we think of it today. Beyond doctors or technician, which many people choose to do today because they enjoy it, most of us won't have a "job" but through our daily activities will reproduce society.


3) There's a whole range of goods and commodities available to us now. Take all the candy bars, games, movies and shampoos for example.There is no rule that prohibits X amount of games, or X amount of shampoos, or X amount of movies. If a selection is deemed necessary, then different products are made right? But what about the use of so many resources etc, and the work to make them all? Would people be able to justify this in our communist society where products are not made for a profit, but for communal use? Would there be as much choice in a communist society, or would there end up being a cliched "People's [Insert commodity]" to save the resources that could be used for something else? Would there be an educated committy to decide such things (the value of a resource)? How would it work?

We can't really know the details of the workings of communist society, but people will decide for themselves what they need and how much of it (of course if someone goes nuts like 48307538 loafs of bread for a three person household then someone will just be like "fuck off"). The idea behind communism is abundance and no work, which isn't that utopian.



4) Wouldn't people start swapping goods among themselves, as their own form of currency? What measures would be put in, and what possible consequences and counter measures would there be for this?

There is nothing wrong with exchange in general, but an organized exchange system is a problem, but it will not develop in communism because there is an abundance. Why would I need to exchange my apples for your pears when I can just go and get some pairs from the communal warehouse?


Apart from those what I also want to know is how would modern life (life as it is now) translate into communism? Would we still have the same freedom and care free attitudes now, or would we be punished for this? For example; I can choose not to work, and recieve benefit. I understand in communism, I would recieve nothing if I didn't contribute. Would I just be left to wither away? How does this work?

Well, like I said in communism there is no work. We will have absolute freedom in communism, freedom we never experienced in our history. Everyones daily activity would reproduce communism in some way or another. No one will be an outcast unless there is a logical reason (reactionary) for it.


What about food franchises and so on, could I go to a subway, or a shop in my town for a burger? I myself see no reason why food franchises would be completely abolished; maybe diminished or restructured to have a more nutritious menu than they do now, but not completely done away with. But wouldn't people be going in there all the time, for "free eating". Shouldn't a limit be put on it? Who would decide this, if this was the case? What other cases could there also be? This also goes for similar shops, what happens to supermarkets?

Food distribution will be done according to local communities. I think mostly it will be sorta like help-yourself cafeterias throughout the cities and towns which people can stop in, grab a bite of whatever they want, and leave. If they want to see something else on the menu, they can just talk to whoever helps maintain the place and see what can be done. There will be a selection of whatever people want. If no one asks for a particular thing then they won't make it, if someone does then they will probably do it.


And finally, how would housing be allocated? Obviously private property would be abolished so how would we decide who lived where? It would certainly be a slow process that begins in socialism. There is no need to immediately displace everyone the second that socialism or communism takes place in order to decide what housing is adequate for whom right? The main concern, I think, should be to first house everyone; taking care that nobody is homeless (at least not unwillingly so). But again, should a doctor be placed in a "better" house than the road sweep?

We will be able to produce enough housing for everyone by then. People can make their houses look however they want them to, "better" or "worse." The key here is freedom and autonomy. People live how ever they wish.

[redstar2000]

You may find these brief essays helpful...

What is Communism? A Brief Definition (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082900868&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

[KC]

You may find these brief essays helpful...

No, you won't.

[Zero]

Well, you can take a look at the holy word of Lenin, and read his scriptures to bask in the glory of it all.

Or you can take a gander around www.redstar2000papers.com, and www.redanarchist.org

[KC]

Well, you can take a look at the holy word of Lenin, and read his scriptures to bask in the glory of it all.

Or you can take a gander around www.redstar2000papers.com, and www.redanarchist.org

Or you could read what Marx actually wrote on the subject. ;)

[JC1]

Originally posted by "KC"+--> ("KC")
"RedTsar"

You may find these brief essays helpful...



No, you won't. [/b]

Quoted for truth.

[Toothlessjoe]

Heh no, they're not any help really. I was about to ask if you guys could settle your petty squabbling, and give some objective answers. I've learned a little so far.

"In Communism one won't feel any need to have a mansion or a sports car. When humans are lacking in something, they seek to find that something in something else."

I like fast cars. In communism, will my personal tastes change also? :rolleyes:.


"First off, there is no distinciton between socialism and communism. It goes from capitalism into communism."

I highly disagree. And it was this statement that made me skip over your post. Sorry to say. I think you're talking crap now. No offense.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 02:04 PM
I like fast cars. In communism, will my personal tastes change also? :rolleyes:.


If you were a communist you wouldn't have such 'personal tastes' in the first place. :rolleyes:

[Toothlessjoe]

Originally posted by Si Pinto+Jun 19 2006, 04:21 PM--> (Si Pinto @ Jun 19 2006, 04:21 PM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 02:04 PM
I like fast cars. In communism, will my personal tastes change also? :rolleyes:.


If you were a communist you wouldn't have such 'personal tastes' in the first place. :rolleyes: [/b]
Can you elaborate?

I was refering to people's taste in things. Such as music, clothing, food, sense of humour etc. Why would I not have them in a communist society?

[Si Pinto]

No, that isn't what I'm saying.

I like 'Beyonce' but that doesn't mean I'd expect a communist society to provide her for me (nice thought though it is).

If YOU were a communist now...here and now, i.e. had strong communist beliefs, then your interest in fast cars would seem less important to you than 'feeding the planet' for instance, or 'ensuring everyone has access to free health care', 'education for all' etc etc.

Not that such ethics are the sole property of Communists, they should be the first requirements of any government, but unfortunately, they are not.

They are 'immovable' requirements for all society, and that is what communists in general (I hope) are interested in, first and foremost.

With all respect, I'm not sure what exactly you want people to tell you, if your questions are a test of our 'communist general knowledge' or if you actually want specific points made clearer.

If you are really looking for 'easy' or 'mono-syllabic' answers to the questions you asked then you are wasting your time because there are none.

It's not wrong of you to have an interest in fast cars, we've all been brought up in a world were personal items are cherished, and our status as a member of that society is measured by these personal items, but it would be very, very, very wrong of a communist society to provide you with a fast car, ahead of the vast plethora of other (and with all due respect ;) ) far more important requirements.

[Janus]

I was refering to people's taste in things. Such as music, clothing, food, sense of humour etc. Why would I not have them in a communist society?
Of course, you would still have the same tastes and likes. However, don't think that there will be a limitless supply of everything just because it is a communist society. There will probably have to be some rationing and I think that your fellow citizens may be a little angry if they discover that you went a bit overboard in your luxury.

[peaccenicked]

Let me start by saying for Marx and Engels, communism is not a choice it is a historical necessity. This was not the birth of Stalinism but a faith in democracy itself. Democracy for them was the key to ending class society. They did not realise that the fruit of democracy could be still born or even aborted, they believed it would lead to the majority of people would realise in time, their class interests.


Communism without democracy, was not inconceivable but described as crude and very objectionable, and ultimately a part of the bourgeois ethic. Marx would never have believed that the latter form would bear his name.

But what happens under genuine communism was, for them, never a matter of desire, it was a condition of historical necessity. Marx was accutely aware that it was like a child being let outdoors for the first time. Free from the property laws that bound the poor but let the rich roam in luxury.


The question is: What is real freedom like?


{to use a daft metaphor}How do you move from being 15 to 65 in one breath?

Of course he realised that this was impossible, and suggested it would be a hard struggle involving many defeats. Nevertheless leading to a sane sensible approach to sharing the very world we live in.

The last thing, that Marx and Engels would have concieved, in their poineer thoughts on the subject, is any restrictions on commodity fetishness.

If the spoiled child wants the ball let him keep it.


They believed that mankinds productive capacities would abolish scarcity.

And I would ask do we not have the potential?

Honestly, they made the sixties hippies look like fascists.

So what, I still love them.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Moderation Notes:
I have moderated this thread and removed posts by EusebioScrib, barista.marxista, and Khayembii Communique so that genuine posters can continue to post about the subjects in this thread without the effects of derailment. If anyone else posts in this thread in an attempt to create personal political attacks on other members they will recieve warning points.