Originally posted by
[email protected] 27 2006, 05:23 PM
Communism isn't bad per say, it is just that our society, in its current state, would be incapable of achieving what what Marx talked about. it requires alturism, a change in beliefs to "equaility is best and i do not wish to be better than my peers" from "i will succeed over another person if the chance appears"... basically a change in human nature...
A change in beliefs is part of the revolution. As for "human nature" no one has even proved that there is one.
another problem is that while communism does end up without a government when society has changed its ways to the ones mentioned above, it has to do that by going through a stage of having a government that has complete control over pretty much everything... that is not bad in itself, but if you reason that human nature would not have yet changed to being alturistic, then this government will take advantage of its near omnipotence, and the opportunities that offers, as seen in most communist societies (exclude China - it has had 3000+ years of autocratic experience, they know what they are doing ...) Again this argument rests on the fictious beast of 'human nature' without that it pretty much crumbles away.
This is pretty much all I see wrong with communism - not supported by current human nature... now for me, the logical argument that follows is can human nature change? Undeniably - the problem is that it still stems form the premise that there is this fundamental human nature.
just to illustrate the above points: In communist Russia (and I am young, so any older Russian please be happy to dissagree with me here ...) I believe the people did begin to change to prefering equality (mainly the people who are now the older generation.... my grandparents included)... however, the leaders, who never had it imposed upon them, did not, and so the system ended up being a very well thought out autocracy, where the people got what they wanted (equality), and the leaders got what they wanted (ultimate power)... so the death of History, or whatever Marx called the end of big government, would never come... Some parts of russia failed, others did not. This does not illustrate a 'human nature' though. The other problem with citing the USSR in this way is that it fails to take into account things like World War 2 and the cold war which had very determental effects on Russia.
Ding ding ding. Key word highlited.
You aren't getting the point. Yes, you do choose to work. But if you don't, you die anyways from hunger. Only thanks to the capitalist system.
So pretty much you have three choices:
1. Work. Have the goods you produced taken from you and sold to someone else to make your boss richer! Don't even think that the goods you produce are yours! They're your boss's, stupid!
2. Self-employ yourself if you're rich or powerful enough. Hire more workers who have no other choice but to work since they don't want to die from starvation.
3. Don't work and die. Oddly this is an argument AGAINST capitalism. After all you will still need people to do option 1 if you do option 1 and that is fundamentally unfair.
Options one and two are for people who want to live. So because people are threatened with starvation they MUST do one of those two things?
When a person works for another on any machine that produces goods, they accept that their labour is under hire and the goods produced are the owners. Its not a matter of theaft as that person would not have the ability to produce the good without the capital of the owner. Would it not be better if they were not beholden to this employer with his capital though? This is what communism aims to remove - this relaince.
1. You state that Captalism is is the owner stealing the produce of the worker, however how would the worker be able to produce said goods without the tools and raw materials provided to him by the owner. In this system? They wouldn't. Under communism? They simply get the tools themselves or use a communally owned tool.
2. You state that collective ownership and distribution will lead to more equalitiy, however in the light of a lack of an Omniscient judge, how can such a system ever be more efficent or even justified by the price mechanism. What the hell are you babling about? Who posited this judge? It is justified because it is *fairer*.
3. If a man has only two options (allthough you've noted three and so blown your theory out of the water some what) If he chooses to work as oposed to starve dose he still not make this choice of his own free will? Of course not, he is threatened with the prospect of starvation.
4. Even in a communist system is the choice to work or starve still not there? Nope.
For each individual to inherit the "fruits of their labor", each individual would have to become self-sufficient. You would be forced to grow your own crops, sew your own clothes, build your own house, build your own car, drill your own oil, produce your own gasoline, build your own computer, harness your own electricity, educate yourself entirely, and provide your own source of entertainment... just to name a few. Which is why in communism they are communally produced and owned.
Hope this helps.