Improvement of Life

[Alexander Hamilton]

I was reading some of the comments here and one was especially interesting: Matty UK's comment that he had become communists because he realized his life would not improve without revolutionary change.

I reflected on this for a while and decided that I am in the opposite circumstance.

I am not particularly rich. I make $75,000 per year. I can afford a home (a mortgage, that is) because I live in Mossouri, and the weather makes the land less desirable than other parts of the United States. We get snow and ice here.

I have a great city, St. Louis, and have season tickets to the Cardinals, a fantastic baseball club. When I get lucky, I get to go to a Rams football game (NFL, for those of you unfarmiliar with our sports. I don't like soccer, scoring is too easy. That's a little joke.) I have a couple of girlfriends and a car, though I don't like driving, and would rather take public transportation.

Because I had a public education, and my work includes a medical plan, I am not in the situation that Cubans found themselves in in the 1950's.

I believe this "improvement of life" issue has a lot to do with what you want out of life. If I lived in Cuba in the 50's, I would want a revolution so there would be food on the table, and an education for my children, if and when I have any.

There are many jobs available in the United States, including the picking of food. By nature, we are all farmers. Or, at least we were, for many thousands of years we did nothing but farm. Somewhere along the lines, farming became a humiliation in the United States, and when one considered whether or not one should apply for welfare, no one seems to bring up various work available through farming.

I would pick tomatos before applying for assistance.

But, back to me:

The improvements of my life are beyond needing food, clothing and shelter. They are for different things that are usually more expensive than the more basic needs I mentioned.

I suppose if the improvement of my life depended upon revolting, I would have no problem doing so. But such is not the case. A socialist revolution would destroy everything I enjoy in life, and bring harm to countless millions in America.

I find much of this improvement of life thing to be based on where you are in your life, and what its experiences have been.


A. Hamilton

[KC]

What's the point of this thread?

[Alexander Hamilton]

The point is that a communist here came to the conclusion that he supported revolution to improve his own station, situation, or circumstance. His name is Matty UK, and he made the statements on one of the threads below.

I took the same view, but with the opposite conclusion.

I also discussed how the improvement of life had to do with what one wanted.

Many people seem obsessed about changing other people's view of the world. Some wish to steer you to the radical left, others to continue moderate liberal views, that of course includes capitalism.

I suppose I should have written, "I invite others to comment." But I thought that obvious.


A. Hamilton

[Phugebrins]

Most of us aren't in it for our own gain: I really doubt I'll see socialism in my lifetime. We're in it because we feel it's the right thing to do. If that appeals to you, consider that 99% (not (http://www.globalrichlist.com/) an exaggeration) of the world's population (and 73% of the US' *households*, never mind individuals) aren't so lucky. Given that the relative wealth you've got comes at the price of half the world living on less than $900 a year, is there any chance of you supporting socialist revolution for the sake of others?

[Connolly]

Hi Alexander! (you are very polite it seems :) )


A socialist revolution would destroy everything I enjoy in life, and bring harm to countless millions in America.

I dont agree with you here.

What sort of socialist revolution are we talking about here?.......you mention Cuba, that was not, is not, socialist and never was?

Socialism (if it were ever to come into existence), would, I imagine, improve your quality of life rather than destroy it.

You will have to elaborate further what exactly you mean.

[Hool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 08:10 PM
Most of us aren't in it for our own gain: I really doubt I'll see socialism in my lifetime. We're in it because we feel it's the right thing to do. If that appeals to you, consider that 99% (not (http://www.globalrichlist.com/) an exaggeration) of the world's population (and 73% of the US' *households*, never mind individuals) aren't so lucky. Given that the relative wealth you've got comes at the price of half the world living on less than $900 a year, is there any chance of you supporting socialist revolution for the sake of others?
How does the relative wealth that he's got come from the price of half the world living on less than $900 a year?

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Hool+Sep 25 2006, 09:08 PM--> (Hool @ Sep 25 2006, 09:08 PM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 08:10 PM
Most of us aren't in it for our own gain: I really doubt I'll see socialism in my lifetime. We're in it because we feel it's the right thing to do. If that appeals to you, consider that 99% (not (http://www.globalrichlist.com/) an exaggeration) of the world's population (and 73% of the US' *households*, never mind individuals) aren't so lucky. Given that the relative wealth you've got comes at the price of half the world living on less than $900 a year, is there any chance of you supporting socialist revolution for the sake of others?
How does the relative wealth that he's got come from the price of half the world living on less than $900 a year? [/b]
A rich cannot exist without a poor. And the only means by which the rich can become richer, is to take from the poor. The Rich and poor doesnt just refer to the upper and lower classes of a country, but also, more importantly, to the relationship between the lower and working middle classes of first and third world countries.

[Tungsten]

Whitten

A rich cannot exist without a poor.True.

And the only means by which the rich can become richer, is to take from the poor.Not true. How rich are you going to get taking from people on less than $1 a day? The only thing you could feasibly can take from them is labour and slavery isn't the order of the day anymore, so if they want that labour, they usually have to pay for it. If they weren't prepared to work for $1 a day, they wouldn't do it; they'd take their chances with subsistence farming instead.

The Rich and poor doesnt just refer to the upper and lower classes of a country, but also, more importantly, to the relationship between the lower and working middle classes of first and third world countries.
What have the working class of the first world taken from those in the third world?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Red Banner+--> (Red Banner)What sort of socialist revolution are we talking about here?.......you mention Cuba, that was not, is not, socialist and never was?[/b]

Bullshit.

I hate when individuals take the current conditions in Cuba and try to "distance" themselves from it by claiming "Cuba never was Socialist".

What you shjould be distancing yourself from is the fact that hitherto Socialism has done nothing but be a platform from which Capitalism in reinstated.

Be a Socialist or don't be a Socialist but please, don't cover up Socialism's failure to produce Communism with it being something other than Socialism.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Not true. How rich are you going to get taking from people on less than $1 a day? The only thing you could feasibly can take from them is labour and slavery isn't the order of the day anymore, so if they want that labour, they usually have to pay for it. If they weren't prepared to work for $1 a day, they wouldn't do it; they'd take their chances with subsistence farming instead.

Actually, the upper class tends to extract the majority of its surplus value from the middle to lower-middle classes.


Aaron Burr ate my baby
Somewhere along the lines, farming became a humiliation in the United States, and when one considered whether or not one should apply for welfare, no one seems to bring up various work available through farming.

The only thing "humiliating" is wage-slavery.

[Alexander Hamilton]

The RedBanner quoted me where I wrote:

A socialist revolution would destroy everything I enjoy in life, and bring harm to countless millions in America.

He then wrote:
I dont agree with you here.
What sort of socialist revolution are we talking about here?.......you mention Cuba, that was not, is not, socialist and never was?
Socialism (if it were ever to come into existence), would, I imagine, improve your quality of life rather than destroy it. You will have to elaborate further what exactly you mean.

My (A. Hamilton's) Elaboration on What I Wrote:

Hi RedBanner,

A Socialist Revolution where I wake up, simply enjoy life and a world without property, live in a large home at the beach, work at my trade for no money and take from others who produce things because they enjoy doing so, and generally enjoy life in this utopian sense would only enhance my life.

A Socialist Revolution that took posessions from me during its inception, that had a party and army which told me where I could live, what job I could do, how I could serve the "community" from its point of view, would be one that, as I wrote, would destroy all that I enjoy.

The market place determins the entertainment I enjoy, the sports I play and watch, and the passtimes I choose. Under ANY Socialist Revolution, the Party would determin what I would watch and read. It would have no choice, otherwise it could not control counter-revolutionaries, or whatever you want to call those who would fight the revolution.

Based in my constitutional system I enjoy is the right to contract with my fellow man. For a Revolution to occur, and be successful, it MUST prevent my freedom to contract with another. Otherwise I will end up, in the eyes of the Revoution, "privatizing" things, creating an ownership sense of what was in my sphere or usage.

If I spent a day in the forest gathering wood and chopping down trees for wood for my family's use, and it appeared to be a lot, the Party, or its agents, would take from me what it would believe was in the best interests of the community. Or they would prevent me from exchanging the wood with another person for the "large amount" of stone they had gathered. the Party leadership would "distribute" our wood and stone as it saw fit, which means (whether you believe this or not), they would keep it and use it possibly for the community, but also for their family and friends. It is the nature of people. To put it simply, the revolution would be betrayed within a month from its inception.

I'll keep my Bill of Rights, thank you very much. It allows me to meet with as many as I choose and discuss what I like. fat chance under revolution, and post revolution times, where the Party would ALWAYS have a security service, ever looking for those who would "backslide" on them.


Please tell my why I'm wrong, and why my life would improve over socialsim.


A. Hamilton

[RebelDog]

Alexander Hamilton

You sound like you have a good life and you say that you are against revolution because it will change that. If you do not care about others then perhaps consider that your own situation is unsustainable.
What are you going to do when the effects of your and millions of your fellow americans lifestyles comes home to roost in the shape of global warming? The situation is different for present day pro-capitalists than it was in the past. The current system is out of control and must be stayed for future human progress. When the human race finally resolves to do something your position will be of little consequence.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Dissenter:

The skies above our city, and Los Angeles, where I lived for some time, used to be a filth. The Clean Air Act changed all that. Stage One Smog Alerts are non-exitant today, and the skies above Los Angeles and St. Louis, which used to be smoggy sewers, are clean and blue.

I note this because I believe that if what commies believe about cappies not being able to change anything that threatens capitalism has been proven wront time and again, from my point of view.

Originally big business was against the Clean Air Act, and argued it would bankrupt the country. The costs were minimal, the pay off was big. Big business lost and was proven wrong. (Oh my...How did that happen in Capitalism?!?!?!?)

I believe that in the near future, the U.S. will take serious action in the area of which you wrote about, and that things will change in this area.

I guess it's "wait and see".


A. Hamilton

[RebelDog]

I believe that in the near future, the U.S. will take serious action in the area of which you wrote about, and that things will change in this area.


I admire your optimism. At the moment it seems niave.
This 'serious action' as you put it will not impinge on your lifestyle?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Probably $100 per year. I'm all for taking steps to solve the problem you mentioned. 100% behind it. Eventually it will be tackled. Yeah, I'm optomistic. We'll see.

A.H.

[RebelDog]

You seem like a nice guy Alexander and I can't help thinking there is a commie in their bursting to get out. :P
But reality must be faced up to here and if we are to stop catastrophic climate change then your lifestyle is going to change dramatically. I don't know where your figure of $100 comes from but it seems you think that people in the US can buy away their complicity and have someone else pull up their socks for them.
Global warming is going to kill and displace millions of people in this century and if drastic steps are not taken in the next few years then it will be an irreversable crisis.
Capitalism cannot be trusted and the market doesn't care.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Dissenter,

In the case of the U.S. cleaning up its air and highways (they're nearly litter free compared to my father's time), there was no complicity; no third world country we dumped our problems on.

I pulled the $100 figure out of my ass. How should I know. Maybe $500. But by that I don't mean the U.S. will "buy" its way out through another whatever. I mean that we will have to alter policies that will create a different scheme for doing what we're doing. We've got the lead out of gasoline, and we pay for that with higher prices for converters in our car and check ups for cars every 2 years. We pay for clean air with filters on factories. We do all sorts of things. Maybe we'll invent some new things along these lines.

Because of forum rules about not turning everything into a debate (of which I'm no good at) I'm not prepared to argue the market will solve every problem. It's good for turning out products, but not good at inspecting meat.

Re: my becoming a commie. Well, I don't think you guys will run a good Super Bowl, or make good movies inspired by an individual's vision, or make good inventions, as there would be state control of all of these things. Also, I'm really BIG on the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the separation of powers. I believe ANY revolution will result in chaos, and eventually the rule of the perpetual dictator. Most of the commies here argue that Stalin and Mao and Castro didn't/don't run a commie country. Of course they didn't/don't. But they use/used the Marxist "card" to be dictators. Every attempt to become commie through revolution will ONLY result in perpetual dictatorship.

Hey, there are some good things about it I wrote about on other posts: In your system, EVERYONE EATS SOMETHING...EVERYONE LIVES SOMEWHERE...EVERYONE WORKS SOME JOB. Those are some pretty big sales points. I just don't think the trade is worth all of the murder (Stalin), humiliation and destruction (Mao), and repression (Castro) that these dictators pull.

They never leave office.

President Bush WILL leave office. Clinton did before him.

To you, there is no difference between Clinton and Bush, when in comes to the important issue of capital versus labor.

But if you had to choose between life under Stalin, versus life with George Bush as president for 8 years, which would you choose? Seriously. IF THOSE WERE YOUR ONLY TWO PICKS. We both know which way you'ld answer. And yeah, I know, Stalin was a psuedo (sp?) commie. I'm just saying.


A. Hamilton

[Raj Radical]

A. Hamilton, you have to consciously get "Soviet=Communism" out of your mind before you can understand where we are coming from.

[Alexander Hamilton]

A. Hamilton, you have to consciously get "Soviet=Communism" out of your mind before you can understand where we are coming from.

Raj, you're not understanding me.

Here's where we AGREE:

THERE HAS NEVER YET BEEN A COMMUNIST SOCIETY (at least one based on post industrialism. Perhaps the tribes in Botswana or the northern part of South Africa, where there IS nothing to own, be we're not writing about them, because Marx was all about industrial societies.)

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A REAL SOCIALIST REVOLUTION.

THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS SOVIET = COMMUNISM.


Here's where we apparently DISAGREE:

It was the INTENT of both the USSR, to build a classless society, based on Marxist principles, but, no doy, the thing got betrayed WAY IN THE BEGINNING, and afterward the Soviets used references to Marx as a cynical method of maintaining the dictatorship.

I realize you don't agree with me on this. We could both look at the history from 1917 onward, it's simply that I am interjecting what I believe was on the minds of those involved in the Revolution.

I accept I have no proof of my views ON THIS SPECIFIC MATTER.


A. Hamilton

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I agree with Dissenter... You do seem a nice guy, Alexander, not the usual gibbering maniac variety of capitalist that plagues O.I. Couple of quick points.


Putting aside all issues of how we get there in the first place, if we do get to communism, there's no state control of anything, because there isn't a state.

Also, I know it's difficult to not equate communism with Mao and Stalin and various other bastards, but you must. They have all been disasters to date, but that isn't because revolution inevitably spits out a dictator every time, it's because of individuals, like Stalin, who essentially warped communism beyond all recognition, whilst still going under a marxist banner to garner sympathy.

-Alex

[Alexander Hamilton]

BurnTheOliveTree's quote:

it's because of individuals, like Stalin, who essentially warped communism beyond all recognition, whilst still going under a marxist banner to garner sympathy.

My quote:

the thing got betrayed WAY IN THE BEGINNING, and afterward the Soviets used references to Marx as a cynical method of maintaining the dictatorship.


Alex,

I think you and I believe nearly the same thing, and it's only symantics. Thank you for understanding I am not what you call a "preacher".

Re: Joe Stalin,

He probably set communism back about 100 years. The current President Bush probably set democracy, the rule of law (for the executive) and the Bill of Rights) back about 8 to 12 years, perhaps 20, in my opinion.


A. Hamilton

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 08:04 AM
I agree with Dissenter... You do seem a nice guy, Alexander, not the usual gibbering maniac variety of capitalist that plagues O.I. Couple of quick points.


Putting aside all issues of how we get there in the first place, if we do get to communism, there's no state control of anything, because there isn't a state.

Also, I know it's difficult to not equate communism with Mao and Stalin and various other bastards, but you must. They have all been disasters to date, but that isn't because revolution inevitably spits out a dictator every time, it's because of individuals, like Stalin, who essentially warped communism beyond all recognition, whilst still going under a marxist banner to garner sympathy.

-Alex
Very good points, but there's a problem.

Many of the communists on this site argue for a violent revolution to bring about socialism which will lead to communism. They argue for the Castro or Leninist model, which seems to say it will require a strong-armed dictatorship to remake society to eventually bring about communism. Here is one major split between capitalists and communists: capitalists view traits like selfishness, materialism, and individualism as inherent in humanity. Communists think they're the result of socialization under capitalism and that said traits can and will be eradicated by the dictatorship that springs out of the revolution.

Never mind that communists are unrealistic in their argument based on thousands of years of human history that show selfishness, individualism and materialism have existed regardless of the political-economic system. The next problem is made abundantly clear by the behavior of communists on this very board: once the glorious people's revolution occurs, what next? Communists would have to govern to bring about this social transformation. And while they all preach the value of consensus, their infighting on several basic issues shows that what happened between Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin will be inevitable. Different strains of communists will fight amongst one another, with the most power-hungry eventually coming out on top, as always. The highly-probable result (99.9%) is a Stalinist dictatorship.

The other strain of communism, which avoids armed revolution of the proletariat in favor of a gradual evolution into communism, is less absurd but still begs the question: if you're convinced that true communism won't happen for several generations, why are you so worked up over capitalist injustices today?