Why support communism?

[Ol' Dirty]

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a Saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."

Why support communism? *

Because an army is only as strong as its weakest soldier. Because a society recieves the crime it deserves. Because people must always come before profit.

These are all excellent reasons to fight for justice, for communism. Of course, there are those that would disagree, and I don't give a damn.

[Edit] Communism would be statless. My bad.

[RevMARKSman]

Because a society recieves the crime it deserves. Because people must always come before profit.

Are we dragging morals into this now? <_< You&#39;re giving us all a bad name. Don&#39;t use abstractions and analogies. Show the cappies why it is in their material interest to support communism.

[apathy maybe]

You have an "interesting" definition of communism that few on this board would actually agree with. Communism to me at least is a class-less state-less society where "property" and resources are held in common.

Your definition seems more like a socialist state. Or socialism in the &#39;narrow&#39; sense.

RevMARKSman: There is nothing wrong with using moralistic arguments for those who have a moralistic background. Yes we have moved beyond such arguments, but not everyone has. Morals are an important part of many peoples lives, I personally try and live by my ethics. That doesn&#39;t mean that you can&#39;t also use materialistic arguments.

[Tungsten]

Muigwithania

Because an army is only as strong as its weakest soldier.
This is a bad anology and it sounds ridiculous when taken literaly.

Because people must always come before profit.
Well, no it&#39;s not necessary and it&#39;s not very desirable either when you look at what it means in practice.

Would you have your paycheck sent straight to starving Africans rather than to your bank account? I hope you say yes, otherwise you&#39;d be putting profit before people. Shame on you.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Are we dragging morals into this now?
This disdain towards morality is something that I do not understand, yet it can be seen in many leftists today. Morals and ethics are simply the things we view to be right or wrong. Thus as long as you see something as fundamentally right, which most of us do, you have morals.

Many Communists believe that, in the "transition phase" of society at least, any governmental institution should try to run society as objectively and logically as possible, through political process and the rule of law (except for an anarchistic society of course, but anarchists also believe in an objective common good I think. If not then this obviously doesn&#39;t apply to them). However, in order for society to be run logically there must be a number of premises from which we can infer in order to determine a logically and objectively sound course of action. These premises can only be determined by a common ethos.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Tungsten
Would you have your paycheck sent straight to starving Africans rather than to your bank account? I hope you say yes, otherwise you&#39;d be putting profit before people. Shame on you.

this point always gives me a dose of the ROFL&#39;s. We all have shopping and landlords to pay so we can survive. No-one is advocating that all the working class of the developed nations should starve to death to feed the world&#39;s least well off. If we did that thered be no one left to overthrow the western beourgiouse. Duh.

[Ol' Dirty]

Because a society recieves the crime it deserves. Because people must always come before profit.


Are we dragging morals into this now? <_<

Only if you want to describe what I wrote as such.

Things shouldn&#39;talways be viewed from a materialist perspective. There are people that are malnourished and unemployed, and that is simply unnacceptable. I find that to be just as good a reason as my own self-interest. In the words of Che Guevera:

"Communism is the ultimate expression of love."

Call me naive. Do you really think I mind?


You&#39;re giving us all a bad name.

Please keep this "civil."


Don&#39;t use abstractions and analogies.

Make me.


Show the cappies why it is in their material interest to support communism.

And show that I condone selfishness? I think not.

Although I understand -and frankly disagree with- your arguments, you are trying to force someone to use purely materialist arguments, which may not be the best way to make an argument. People have personalities, social contracts and such. Pure materialism is dry and incorrect.


You have an "interesting" definition of communism that few on this board would actually agree with. Communism to me at least is a class-less state-less society where "property" and resources are held in common.


I personaly don&#39;t think that a stateless society would work well, unless done in smaller groups. Frankly, I don&#39;t care if people disagree with my definition. It is, after all, my definition. Make your own, if you need to. I was merely refering to what I believe in.

Communism, in some people&#39;s minds, would evolve into a stateless organization, but I&#39;m not quite sure about that.


Your definition seems more like a socialist state. Or socialism in the &#39;narrow&#39; sense.

Total collectivism and respect towards individual social rights is communism. Call it what you will; that is the broadest definition that is the least divisible.


RevMARKSman: There is nothing wrong with using moralistic arguments for those who have a moralistic background. Yes we have moved beyond such arguments, but not everyone has. Morals are an important part of many peoples lives, I personally try and live by my ethics. That doesn&#39;t mean that you can&#39;t also use materialistic arguments.

That&#39;s what I&#39;ve ben saying.

Materialism is a great thing. Of course, that doesn&#39;t mean that everyone understands it. I am merely trying to put the argument into a lense which most would underwstand.


Because an army is only as strong as its weakest soldier.


This is a bad anology and it sounds ridiculous when taken literaly.

It&#39;s a millitary maxim. If you don&#39;t like the analogy then you can simply argue with tacticians and strategists; not me. I merely dabble.


Because people must always come before profit.


Well, no it&#39;s not necessary and it&#39;s not very desirable either when you look at what it means in practice.


Would you have your paycheck sent straight to starving Africans rather than to your bank account?

Your analogy isn&#39;t a good one. If I am sending my paycheck to starving Africans then I am still operating under the capitalist wage system. From each according to abbility, to each according to need.


I hope you say yes, otherwise you&#39;d be putting profit before people. Shame on you.

:huh: I don&#39;t see the connection

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Muigwathania, you are terribly confused. Please tone down your silly liberal rhetoric, sharpen up on your socialist theory, and then make a thread about your views.

You basically lack any class consciousness and understanding of historical materialism, which are the sole foundations for communism.

Also, when Marxists talk about a stateless society, we don&#39;t literally mean a society with no public organization of any kind, we mean a society free of class rule and a government as a political organ of said ruling class. This is how Marx defined the "state". If you read even the Communist Manifesto you would know this. Really, you are making us look bad.

[Ol' Dirty]

I&#39;ll shut up now.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 11, 2007 03:21 am
Muigwathania, you are terribly confused. Please tone down your silly liberal rhetoric, sharpen up on your socialist theory, and then make a thread about your views.

You basically lack any class consciousness and understanding of historical materialism, which are the sole foundations for communism.

Also, when Marxists talk about a stateless society, we don&#39;t literally mean a society with no public organization of any kind, we mean a society free of class rule and a government as a political organ of said ruling class. This is how Marx defined the "state". If you read even the Communist Manifesto you would know this. Really, you are making us look bad.
Dr. Rosenpenis, you are terribly arrogant. Please tone down your silly Marxist rhetoric, etc.


This person has come out and offered an opinion. They never claimed to be Marxist, not only that both historical materialism and class consciousness are not "the sole foundations of communism", though they may well be the "sole foundations" of Marxism.

Because they don&#39;t appear to claim to be Marxist, how do they make you look bad? Yes their definition of "communism" is obviously not yours, but as such, your crap about historical materialism mean even less.


Marxism and communism are two different things, if you cannot accept that ... Well ...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Muigwithania, I apologize if I offended you or seemed arrogant. My intentions were to better inform you, and I can see that I may have writen too aggressively.

AM, [content edited by me for flaming; see my PM]

[Tungsten]

this point always gives me a dose of the ROFL&#39;s. We all have shopping and landlords to pay so we can survive. You&#39;re telling me you have no disposable income after shopping and rent whatsoever? I don&#39;t believe you. Even if you didn&#39;t, most people do, so there.

----


It&#39;s a millitary maxim. If you don&#39;t like the analogy then you can simply argue with tacticians and strategists
From what century?

[Vendetta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:59 am

this point always gives me a dose of the ROFL&#39;s. We all have shopping and landlords to pay so we can survive. You&#39;re telling me you have no disposable income after shopping and rent whatsoever? I don&#39;t believe you. Even if you didn&#39;t, most people do, so there.
You&#39;d be surprised.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:59 am




It&#39;s a millitary maxim. If you don&#39;t like the analogy then you can simply argue with tacticians and strategists

From what century?

http://www.google.com/search?q=an+army+is+....netscape:en-US (http://www.google.com/search?q=an+army+is+only+as+strong+as+its+weakest+ soldier&client=netscape-pp&rls=com.netscape:en-US)

This one.

[Tungsten]

Strength ceased to make any significant difference to warfare after the widespead adoption of the gun as a primary weapon. It has even less significance now.

I&#39;ve googled the phrase and there&#39;s no mention of it&#39;s use by any tactician, past or present. You don&#39;t have an argument here.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:06 pm
Would you have your paycheck sent straight to starving Africans rather than to your bank account? I hope you say yes, otherwise you&#39;d be putting profit before people. Shame on you.
Silly Capitalist, a paycheck is by no stretch of the imagination profit. It is a little slice, often as tiny as possibly, of your bosses profit that he kicks down to you so you can keep working for him, and, in the west, have enough money to buy from him as well. I wouldnt have my little paycheck go to starving africans, alot of good it&#39;d do them. I would have a huge slice of my boss&#39;s paycheck (which isnt really a paycheck, but actual genuine profit) go to the starvlings of the world, and all the other bosses of the country as well. My boss is an asshole, He treats the managers (grocery store) like shit, pays them only a little better than me, and they do the vast majority of the work for him, and low-level workers (just a part time wank job) like myself do the rest, while he sits at home and watches us from tv hookups he has of the security cameras. This is your average boss, make them pay and feed the starvlings, they have too much.

I dont know about anybody else here, but I am payed the very least the boss can give me without getting charged. In turn, I work the very least I can without getting fired, its a good system, and I know all you capitalists with your little protestant work ethics are struck back by this repulsive idea, but heres a thought, maybe I would work harder if I, as a worker, recieved a share of the profits equal to all the other workers? Suppose every buisiness worked that way? Suppose the person who made the Nike Shoe was payed a slice of the profit equal to the person who shipped it over, and the person who sold it? Id think that would be a damn better made shoe than the slavery sneaks that are selling now.

[wtfm8lol]

so..why not organize all of the people working for your asshole of a boss and leave at the same time rather than *****ing about it?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:13 pm

I dont know about anybody else here, but I am payed the very least the boss can give me without getting charged. In turn, I work the very least I can without getting fired, its a good system, and I know all you capitalists with your little protestant work ethics are struck back by this repulsive idea, but heres a thought, maybe I would work harder if I, as a worker, recieved a share of the profits equal to all the other workers? Suppose every buisiness worked that way? Suppose the person who made the Nike Shoe was payed a slice of the profit equal to the person who shipped it over, and the person who sold it? Id think that would be a damn better made shoe than the slavery sneaks that are selling now.
Okay, let&#39;s look at this for a second.

You cite Nike as an example as a successful capitalist operation, and suggest getting a slice of that profit.
But what happens if the company you work for does not make a profit? How about all those employees for Ford Motor Company? Are you seriously suggesting that the Ford workers would be be in a better situation if they received no salary for 2006? Or maybe a little more is needed than simply "a slice of the profit?"

[Rage Against Right]

I may not be familar with ewokutopia&#39;s situation but i know from experience of others who work for places like Mcdonalds, even if you get the whole staff to leave, which is a monunmental effort on its own, the boss probably has a waiting list of jobs to be filled and will fill them just as soon as their emptyed, thus leaving ewokutopia and her collegues with no income again looking for work. So an attempt like this though possible is made very difficult by the capilist system and peoples want/need for money

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Rage Against [email protected] 12, 2007 03:07 pm
I may not be familar with ewokutopia&#39;s situation but i know from experience of others who work for places like Mcdonalds, even if you get the whole staff to leave, which is a monunmental effort on its own, the boss probably has a waiting list of jobs to be filled and will fill them just as soon as their emptyed, thus leaving ewokutopia and her collegues with no income again looking for work. So an attempt like this though possible is made very difficult by the capilist system and peoples want/need for money
Great&#33; Now socialism does not need to provide goods and services for people. I guess it just sorts of spontaneously generates.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by ZX3+February 12, 2007 03:03 pm--> (ZX3 @ February 12, 2007 03:03 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 01:13 pm

I dont know about anybody else here, but I am payed the very least the boss can give me without getting charged. In turn, I work the very least I can without getting fired, its a good system, and I know all you capitalists with your little protestant work ethics are struck back by this repulsive idea, but heres a thought, maybe I would work harder if I, as a worker, recieved a share of the profits equal to all the other workers? Suppose every buisiness worked that way? Suppose the person who made the Nike Shoe was payed a slice of the profit equal to the person who shipped it over, and the person who sold it? Id think that would be a damn better made shoe than the slavery sneaks that are selling now.
Okay, let&#39;s look at this for a second.

You cite Nike as an example as a successful capitalist operation, and suggest getting a slice of that profit.
But what happens if the company you work for does not make a profit? How about all those employees for Ford Motor Company? Are you seriously suggesting that the Ford workers would be be in a better situation if they received no salary for 2006? Or maybe a little more is needed than simply "a slice of the profit?" [/b]
this, the capitalist takes on all the risk.

besides, if you feel you aren&#39;t being paid well, then quit or as you already do work to the extent that you feel is worth your wage. i have no problem with that, i do it myself.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Great&#33; Now socialism does not need to provide goods and services for people. I guess it just sorts of spontaneously generates.
What?

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:15 pm
so..why not organize all of the people working for your asshole of a boss and leave at the same time rather than *****ing about it?
That would require getting about a hundred people I dont know to risk their jobs in an effort of complete unionization (we dont even have a union). This is quite hard to do, especially given that most people there are part time student workers, most of them being in high school and therefore recieving less than minimum wage without giving it much thought.

If I could organize them, that would be great, but somehow I dont feel that this organization will really come from the pithy complaicent consumer class that is the workers of Grocery stores. Plus I would be fired long before my organization passes the 20 person mark.

The boss has done a good job (for himself) in one area, hiring apathetic high school students who present no risk to his profits, and making the full time workers who struggle to make ends meet a minority in the workplace which he could easily replace.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by ZX3+February 12, 2007 05:13 pm--> (ZX3 @ February 12, 2007 05:13 pm)
Rage Against [email protected] 12, 2007 03:07 pm
I may not be familar with ewokutopia&#39;s situation but i know from experience of others who work for places like Mcdonalds, even if you get the whole staff to leave, which is a monunmental effort on its own, the boss probably has a waiting list of jobs to be filled and will fill them just as soon as their emptyed, thus leaving ewokutopia and her collegues with no income again looking for work. So an attempt like this though possible is made very difficult by the capilist system and peoples want/need for money
Great&#33; Now socialism does not need to provide goods and services for people. I guess it just sorts of spontaneously generates. [/b]
What the devil are you talking about?

[GX.]

Would you have your paycheck sent straight to starving Africans rather than to your bank account? I hope you say yes, otherwise you&#39;d be putting profit before people. Shame on you. Eh, what? Do you know what the word profit means?

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 02:09 am
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a Saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."

[i]Why support communism?

Because an army is only as strong as its weakest soldier. Because a society recieves the crime it deserves. Because people must always come before profit.

These are all excellent reasons to fight for justice, for communism. Of course, there are those that would disagree, and I don&#39;t give a damn.

[Edit]: Communism would be stateless. My bad.
:blush: