Cappie and Commie Cultures

[Pilar]

A while ago I wrote my views on incest and sex with minors and older men in the age of majority. I didn’t start the thread, but responded to it as one of many.

I’ll skip discussing the lame comments about my sex life (I’m a female, early 20’s), as one or two believed I was repressed, not enjoying sex with 40 year olds when I was 14.

But the interesting argument made against me was that I embraced the laws of the middle class, and my revolutionary status was questioned.

I don’t wish to discuss the sex w/ minors issue again, but instead, whether one can act “cappie” by embracing certain laws, that I don’t classify as either cappie or commie or whatever.

Here’s what I mean:

I support a truth oath and punishment for perjury in whatever post-Revolutionary society court organization will exist. (This is a UK common law concept)

I support the group or commission system of experts to insure our water is healthy and our air is clean. (This is a local US concept, about 100 years old now.)

I support parents raising their children, and do not believe children are the property of the state. (This is not, to me, as capitalist concept, but one of naturalism.)

For me, the question is simple: does one support a society without capitalism, bosses, exploitation, etc.

As some of my examples suggest, isn't it possible SOME cappie practices are alligned to SOME commie practices?

Please don't tell me that in post-Revolutionary times there will be no birthdaycake!

Why do so many here cry hearsay merely because one embraces what they believe are reasonable viewpoints of a post-Revolutionary society? SHOULDN’T WE HAVE THE BLOODY REVOLUTION FIRST, THEN ACCUSE OTHERS OF BEING BACKSLIDERS AND COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARIES?

[Janus]

whether one can act “cappie” by embracing certain laws
It's one thing to "embrace" state laws and another to accept or support them to a certain degree.

And as far as capitalism goes, you can only be considered a supporter of capitalism if you support the economic practices.

[Pilar]

As I wrote, I, for example, "embrace" and support the state law (California) requiring one to tell the truth in a court circumstance.

At the same time, I see how any post-Revolutionary American Socialist Trial will embrace and support the SAME law or rule. (That is, any socialist trial will have a punishment for lying to the court.)


I placed this in the learning section so someone could either reenforce this point I have raised or challenge it.

[Robo the Hobo]

I would like to bring up a point in relation to some of what this thread is reffering to. Please dont ask for me to be linched for betraying the revolution, because I am just exploring ideas.....

If it is possible, (wich I believe it probably is) to implement a progressive socialist party within a country without violence, that would then leave the country open to a communist society even if it took a number of years, wouldn't that be the best method; to use society, even if it is capitalist, to destroy capitalism?

The other probably more controversial point I would like to make is that not ALL 'capitalists' are evil people, and if we could persuade them to join the revolution that would probably be better than arresting them for the crime of being captilalists?

the point I am trying to make is that maby the struggles communists have fought with weopons against capitalists have maid them forget that force although a tool is not neccesarily (particularly I would argue in our time) the only tool available to us, and that some 'capitalists' are good people who are just mindlesly going along with the flow of society.

[Issaiah1332]

I agree...I am very pacifist. I think that there are other tools, other than violence and I would hate to see many capitalists' blood poured in the streets for doing nothing more than being rich.

Yes, they exploit. Yes, it is not right...but, in a Capitalist society one exploits to get ahead. And many, if not all, want to get ahead.

[Pilar]

The above two comments are not what I intended to discuss, but I'll chime in:

There are no EVIL people (w/ exceptions such as Hitler or Manson, ha), but only what classes are ALLOWED to do.

Want to "change" a cappies point of view? Don't let him be a cappie. No one needs to be reeducated or killed in a purge. Just remove from them their exploitative means of creating wealth.

What they gonna do then?

[Robo the Hobo]

I was thinking possibly in a more short term way; during a revolution that needs to come, trying to get at least some capitalists to accept our ideas volintarily would be a good idea, as it could lead to easier change, and support

[Issaiah1332]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:24 pm
The above two comments are not what I intended to discuss, but I'll chime in:

There are no EVIL people (w/ exceptions such as Hitler or Manson, ha), but only what classes are ALLOWED to do.

Want to "change" a cappies point of view? Don't let him be a cappie. No one needs to be reeducated or killed in a purge. Just remove from them their exploitative means of creating wealth.

What they gonna do then?
I agree.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 09:13 pm
I support parents raising their children, and do not believe children are the property of the state. (This is not, to me, as capitalist concept, but one of naturalism.)
Does this imply that you believe children to be the property of their parents? Your statement seem to suggest that if children were to be raised by the state then they must be its property, so wouldn't the same hold true for children raised by their parents?

I'm not taking a side in such an arguement, but that does seem to be a contradiction in your logic.

[Pilar]

Whitten,

If you put my husband and I (I'm not married, just making an argument) in the desert alone with our child, we'll obviously rear it. We won't think in terms of ownership. The larger the population, the more others will have in saying the extent by which we can rear it. Obviously his freedoms will be curtailed as the population grows. (i.e., at first, he could throw rocks everywhere, but then as people are now all around him, only in a few directions.)

I never thought of using the word ownership, but think in terms of rearing the child. I don't know if one can "own" people. It's propably wrongful and illogical and against basic freedoms.

But it's funny, W: you made me realize ANOTHER time where cappie and commie views are similar:

Both advocate preventing parents from harming their children, and both would use the power of the state to enforce their decision.

[Capcomm]

well im a "capitalist" "communist" if you can understand that? lol....


you see, im a capitalist if thats what you want to label me because i live under the capitalist system and i think its the best economic system ever created and the liberal ideals are the best at this point in time....

but...i believe that after studying Marx, i think Communism is defenitaly possible and maybe innevitable, of course capitalism has adapted very well to the changes that Marx forsaw, and in fact the changes that capitalism has made Marx never saw coming....

So by saying that there will be a technology in the future that will be so great that will be able to create huge surplus to eliminate labor is not far off, i mean we are seeing it in our own times....so i think at least technology will be great enough to eliminate labor, and thus create a communist society....but many have the idea that that would mean "you don't own private property bla bla bla", NO! thats not what Marx said, what he said was that now private ownership of the means of production won't be anymore...as for elimination of government etc...im not so sure, Marx could have been wrong on that, because inherent human need for power doesn't have to do with economic gain...in a group of people in any situation there will always be those who want to control the other for any particular reason...

Anyways to finish off, capitalism should be embraced by all who understand Marx, praxis has been attempted and as Marx said if it doesn't work its an ideology, so that means that at the moment we should just wait until the time is right and engage in praxis again. :)

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:25 pm
well im a "capitalist" "communist" if you can understand that? lol....


you see, im a capitalist if thats what you want to label me because i live under the capitalist system and i think its the best economic system ever created and the liberal ideals are the best at this point in time....

but...i believe that after studying Marx, i think Communism is defenitaly possible and maybe innevitable, of course capitalism has adapted very well to the changes that Marx forsaw, and in fact the changes that capitalism has made Marx never saw coming....

So by saying that there will be a technology in the future that will be so great that will be able to create huge surplus to eliminate labor is not far off, i mean we are seeing it in our own times....so i think at least technology will be great enough to eliminate labor, and thus create a communist society....but many have the idea that that would mean "you don't own private property bla bla bla", NO! thats not what Marx said, what he said was that now private ownership of the means of production won't be anymore...as for elimination of government etc...im not so sure, Marx could have been wrong on that, because inherent human need for power doesn't have to do with economic gain...in a group of people in any situation there will always be those who want to control the other for any particular reason...

Anyways to finish off, capitalism should be embraced by all who understand Marx, praxis has been attempted and as Marx said if it doesn't work its an ideology, so that means that at the moment we should just wait until the time is right and engage in praxis again. :)
We cannot just sit and wait for the revolution to come!?! That's something for a fifth Internationale ^_^ . Sure communism seems inevitable, but that does not mean we have to do nothing at all. We must fight for every right, we must fight for every victory over the bourgeoisie; but without losing our goal (unlike the social-democrats who betrayed the workers by ignoring this goal).

[Capcomm]

We cannot just sit and wait for the revolution to come!?! That's something for a fifth Internationale . Sure communism seems inevitable, but that does not mean we have to do nothing at all. We must fight for every right, we must fight for every victory over the bourgeoisie; but without losing our goal (unlike the social-democrats who betrayed the workers by ignoring this goal).

ok, thats your own personal interpretation, but we have so many things wrong with the current left with such people supporting regimes like Castro's etc..that i just don't even want to identify myself with these so called "Marxists"...plus thats one thing about Marxism that i think is naive and ironic and stupid to say the least, the fact that we should support each and every group that looks for radical change, than that would mean that if it is a group of baby eating cavemans who support change we should support them too? Thats just stupid...In fact the way i think of actually taking action and supporting Marxism itself is supporting for capitalism to actually work in the 3rd world countries , if we can get them to just be like say South Korea in 100 years, than communism would be almost 90+ certain and innevitable.....can't you see that these Marxist revolutions in 3rd world countries are just pathetic and holding the progress back? Would you support a Marxist regime in say Zambia? That would be pathetic!!

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Pilar, if I understand you correctly, you are just saying that there is no reason why the revolution should change everything for the sake of changing it.

I agree, and I think the vast majority of comrades would agree as well. A law or practice does not suddenly become bad just because the bourgeoisie does it or endorses it. In fact, from a Marxist point of view, the opposite is more likely to be true: Laws and customs (and economic relations) shape people's behavior. The bourgeoisie is not bad because they are somehow "bad people", but because the economic system of capitalism has placed them in a parasitic and exploitative social role.

[phoenixoftime]

I support parents raising their children, and do not believe children are the property of the state. (This is not, to me, as capitalist concept, but one of naturalism.)

I don't believe that children should be the property of the state either, but they are certainly the future of the community and society in general. Hence it is in the entire community's interest how that child is raised. To me it seems ridiculous to expect every parent to be an expert in personal development and childhood education. We should be providing experts to teach our children from a very young age, whilst providing the structures to support such a system.

To say that parents have the right to raise their children exclusively and in the fashion that they so desire reminds me a lot of private property.

It seems difficult to imagine when you're living in a society where the concept of the family, marriage and the family household are so prevalent. But such structures have been outdated for years. Read some Alexandra Kollontai for more on why.

[phoenixoftime]

Would you support a Marxist regime in say Zambia?

Indeed I would. Like many African nations, their economy is almost entirely dependant on one commodity - copper. A programme of free-market reforms supported by the IMF have had a dire effect on the poor (86% of the population were living below the poverty line in 1993 [CIA], with little improvement) and the government is extremely corrupt. Meanwhile all the country's wealth is flowing into companies offshore who have taken advantage of the privitization drive.

A successful Marxist revolution in Zambia, coupled with governmental systems to efficiently manage the economy and protect against a likely counter-revolution, would have a chance of rapidly improving economic growth and conditions for the majority. Something which the IMF's Structural Adjustment Programmes have failed to do.

[Pilar]

phoenixoftime:


I don't believe that children should be the property of the state either, but they are certainly the future of the community and society in general. Hence it is in the entire community's interest how that child is raised. To me it seems ridiculous to expect every parent to be an expert in personal development and childhood education. We should be providing experts to teach our children from a very young age, whilst providing the structures to support such a system.

There are countless examples of the current California Family Code that support what you just wrote. In fact EVERYTHING in your paragraph is, in some way, remedied by "cappie" law of the Code.

Children are the future of the community and society are words used by ALL American politicians regardless of party affiliation.

California requires experts teach children, and parents abide by it with very few exceptions. In California, childhood development is a regulated profession. The school is a structure that supports such a system.

phoenixoftime, It's probable you and I don't agree with current curriculums or goals of California's programs, but my post is to demonstrate both cappie and commie have similar views on the outcomes. I don't know any commie who believes parents should be able to beat their kids, give their kids alcohol until they are sick, leave them out in the streets, etc. I don't know any cappie who supports this either. Not all things are economic. Some are just plain common sense and natural.



To say that parents have the right to raise their children exclusively and in the fashion that they so desire reminds me a lot of private property.

No where in the U.S. is a parent allowed to raise their child "exclusive" of society. All states have a family code of some kind. No doubt other cappie societies have similar.



It seems difficult to imagine when you're living in a society where the concept of the family, marriage and the family household are so prevalent. But such structures have been outdated for years. Read some Alexandra Kollontai for more on why.

What do you care about my family life? Where and how do YOU live? Where I live (San Diego, California), EVERYONE lives in a family (with few exceptions). Who cares if I pledge my life to one man or 50. That's not anyone's business. Simply remove the economics from the system of marriage and you will still have men and women choosing mates for life. If YOU choose not to have a mate for life, good for you. I don't care. More importantly, your statement is not supported by the evidence. What you wrote is the same as, "Automobiles in cities are outdated." Everyone might hate them and prefer public transportation, but they're EVERYWHERE. Same thing with marriage and family household. When it's nearly non-existent, THEN it will be "outdated". Tens of thousands of people get married every day all over the world. If people converted to communism at the same rate, the revolution would have long been over by now.

[Capcomm]

Indeed I would. Like many African nations, their economy is almost entirely dependant on one commodity - copper. A programme of free-market reforms supported by the IMF have had a dire effect on the poor (86% of the population were living below the poverty line in 1993 [CIA], with little improvement) and the government is extremely corrupt. Meanwhile all the country's wealth is flowing into companies offshore who have taken advantage of the privitization drive.

A successful Marxist revolution in Zambia, coupled with governmental systems to efficiently manage the economy and protect against a likely counter-revolution, would have a chance of rapidly improving economic growth and conditions for the majority. Something which the IMF's Structural Adjustment Programmes have failed to do.

I disagree with you, but you do make strong points about the foreign companies taking the wealth, such is this vicious cycle. But i think we should work instead to break this vicious cycle, and a Marxist Revolution is not the ideal solution at the moment, because as you said they are dependant on 1 commodity! And they are so freaking poor with almost no technological leaps in their economy, how can Marxism work there? Instead, heavy investment and industralization , maybe a system similar to that of China's etc.....the thing is that with these African countries there are so many factors that make them not succeed, they are so backwards with all of their tribal warfare and ethnic conflicts, and stupid leaders etc.. its just impossible no matter what the hell you do there.

[phoenixoftime]

Originally posted by Capcomm+--> (Capcomm)What do you care about my family life? Where and how do YOU live? Where I live (San Diego, California), EVERYONE lives in a family (with few exceptions). Who cares if I pledge my life to one man or 50. That's not anyone's business. Simply remove the economics from the system of marriage and you will still have men and women choosing mates for life.[/b]

I don't believe personal relationships are any of the state's business, or indeed anybody else's business at all. But in most Western countries, families serve as the sole providers of a child's needs. If that family falls apart for whatever reason, the children suffer from being in a disadvantaged position to begin with - they can't just sell their labour to earn a living. They are physically unable to support themselves. Hence, governments normally provide social security in the form of foster care programmes, orphanages etc.

But this is simply cleaning up the pieces without fixing the cause of the accident. With such an ad-hoc system of supporting children economically and in their early education, it's not surprising that so many children end up falling through the cracks. And no I don't think children should have to go through all the trauma of being thrown through foster homes.

To help you understand why the family so often falls apart, here's a quote from Communism and the Family.


Originally posted by Alexandra [email protected] Communism and the Family
The family breaks down as more and more women go out to work. How can one talk about family life when the man and woman work different shifts, and where the wife does not even have the time to prepare a decent meal for her offspring? How can one talk of parents when the mother and father are out working all day and cannot find the time to spend even a few minutes with their children?

For the married working woman, life is as had as the workhouse. It is not surprising therefore that family ties should loosen and the family begin to fall apart. The circumstances that held the family together no longer exist. The family is ceasing to be necessary either to its members or to the nation as a whole. The old family structure is now merely a hindrance. What used to make the old family so strong? First, because the husband and father was the family’s breadwinner; secondly, because the family economy was necessary to all its members: and thirdly, because children were brought up by their parents. What is left of this former type of family? The husband, as we have just seen, has ceased to he the sole breadwinner. The wife who goes to work earns wages. She has learned to cam her own living, to support her children and not infrequently her husband. The family now only serves as the primary economic unit of society and the supporter and educator of young children.

The state should be fully responsible for raising our children. This isn't to say that parents should have no input into this education and upbringing, but they shouldn't be left alone to do it all themselves, nor should they be expected to take responsibility. It's the responsibility for all of society, since the outcome affects all of us.


Capcomm
]There are countless examples of the current California Family Code that support what you just wrote. In fact EVERYTHING in your paragraph is, in some way, remedied by "cappie" law of the Code.

I don't have a problem with that, I fully support such measures. But - correct me if I'm wrong - what I don't see is a shift away from the family as the basis of children's economic and educational support.

[phoenixoftime]

Originally posted by Capcomm
And they are so freaking poor with almost no technological leaps in their economy, how can Marxism work there? Instead, heavy investment and industralization , maybe a system similar to that of China's etc.....the thing is that with these African countries there are so many factors that make them not succeed, they are so backwards with all of their tribal warfare and ethnic conflicts, and stupid leaders etc.. its just impossible no matter what the hell you do there.

You're right, the political situation seems impossible in a lot of African nations. While I like your idea of heavy investment and industrialization, there's no reason why a Marxist regime couldn't put this in place, accepting foreign investment, but then ensuring that the masses actually reap the rewards in a fair and equal manner. Waiting around for the free market to benefit the people at the bottom is only going to take longer, IMO.

[Capcomm]

You're right, the political situation seems impossible in a lot of African nations. While I like your idea of heavy investment and industrialization, there's no reason why a Marxist regime couldn't put this in place, accepting foreign investment, but then ensuring that the masses actually reap the rewards in a fair and equal manner. Waiting around for the free market to benefit the people at the bottom is only going to take longer, IMO.

Yeah that sounds reasonable, i mean i don't really care if it is a "Marxist" regime or "Republican" or whatever the hell they name theirselves, because after all they all have their own personal agendas, as long as the country actually freaking develops you know, trust me man it would help the world so much and the Marxist cause if countries in Africa and Latin America become as industralized as say Taiwan or something....it would make Communism much more of a possability