Does Socialism Destroy Individuality

[ComradeJunichi]

A few people around here keep talking about Individuality and Communism on other ends of the spectrum. ???

[Exploited Class]

Only if you equate your individuality with the possesions you purchase that others can not.

[Nateddi]

Its all about ethics.

Any control of the market can be legitimately interpreted as limiting individuality, I don't see any problem with limiting individuality.

[ComradeJunichi]

What about the mind? Like freedom of speech.

[Exploited Class]

Quote: from ComradeJunichi on 4:50 pm on Oct. 16, 2002
What about the mind? Like freedom of speech.

Okay I don't know how social equality equals not being able to speak freely?

I think you are looking at Russia Vs. America. Where there were restrictions against certain activities, On Both Sides. Couldn't really say you loved Communism during the 50's in America nor could you say the opposite in Russia. It is kind of what happens when to ideaologies clash and Nuclear Weapons are pointed at eachother.

[Nateddi]

Socialism at its core will always limit economic individuality.

Socialism at its core is indifferent or in other words may or may not limit political freedom/individuality.

Capitalism is always more individual economically than socialism. Individuality is likely the biggest factor contrast between socialism and capitalism.

[Goldfinger]

Capitalism is the freedom to make as much money as you can and forcing people to work for you, but in most cases, you'll end up working.

(Edited by Apocalypse When at 10:02 pm on Oct. 16, 2002)

[honest intellectual]

It's one of those stock-and-rote anti-communist arguments. Most cappies who make this claim will shrink from further questioning on it. I think the origin is that socialism abolishes private property, which consumerism brands as the definition of the individual.

"I used to ask myself: 'What kitchen unit defines me as a person?'" - Fight Club

[Iepilei]

It's just a statement people use to try to deamonize it.

In the same sence, you can also use the same logic - used by capitalists - to describe how the transition from monarchy to a representative democracy took away man's freedom to reign direct control over his nation he faught to create.

You'll notice nowadays we scowl at despotisms and kings.

The way I see it, the major affecting factors in our lives are government and economy. Feudalism gave the aristocracy complete power over both government and the market. Nowadays, we've won the government part (ie kings no longer rule with unrestricted authority) - they've simply taken ground in the economy.

Through economy, they sway public opinion and undermine our democratic way of life. So to an extent, the aristocracy still control our lives, by manipulating our system.

To take away the freedom to rule is not to take away the freedom to live and express, but to enhance it.

[American Kid]

Anything that attempts to ever impose limits on my political freedom/induviduality is something I'll fight til the air leaves my lungs.

-AK

[timbaly]

limiting individuality will help the world as a whole it will prevent envy and jealousy and it is bound to happen and impossible to avoid if socialism is achieved.

[LeninCCCP]

It all depends by what you mean by individuality, the way you think and feel or the products you buy...

[PaulDavidHewson]

well, it depends on how far you take limiting individual rights.
I would agree that my taxes are being used to help people get a good education, healthcare, political refugees, etc.

But I'm opposed that my taxes are being used to support those who are too lazy to work.
In this case I would see it as an infrigment of my individual rights that my taxes are being used to fund some lazy bum.
Also I would see it as a violation of my individual rights when my taxes are being used to help "Economic refugees".

I would also see it as an infrigment of my individual rights when a centralised goverment were to decide where to live and work, the amount of money I spent, the amount of money I earn, etc.

But that's just my idea of individual rights :)

[Iepilei]

You know many people supported kings and tyrants back in the day... thought they were created by will of the gods... thought it was their right and destiny to lead their fellow man...

My, how our paradigms change...

So I take it all you capitalists support the re-introduction of kings, and feudal lords? You support the full re-intergration of the old world leaders? The tyrants? The despots? You support having a king over you?

Well I support my right to govern myself and I support my right to make sure what's being made is for the betterment of the nation and not yourself.

I refuse to have my hard work go to gain profit for someone else, just as I refuse to have my tax dollars go to fill some kings castle.

(Edited by Iepilei at 6:00 am on Oct. 17, 2002)

[Jaha]

well, i should hope that individualism exists under a socialism. for, a people without diversity is boring as hell.

[PunkRawker677]

Individuality is obviously being defined differently by everyone in this thread, as in the world. We all view individuality differently. So, its impossible to say that capitalism or socialism limit individuality. It would be more correct to say that both systems limit certain individual rights.

[Blackberry]

Quote: from American Kid on 1:57 am on Oct. 17, 2002
Anything that attempts to ever impose limits on my political freedom/induviduality is something I'll fight til the air leaves my lungs.

-AK


You better start fighting the American Government then.

[American Kid]

Then give me good reasons to.

How is my gov limiting my individual rights?

Riddle me this: I'm a writer. I know under this gov, they'll let me publish anything I want. Anything. Now, under a collective gov, if what I want published doesn't serve the collective, well then...........what then?

Hm..........I think for a good answer you could maybe ask Boris Pasternak. He's got some experience in this "arena"..............Mm.......

We're fucked up (I'm not idiot, I know this) but God love us,

God bless America
-AK

[LeonardoDaVinci]

That is the most subtle and insiduous form of dictatorship. In the American democracy, you can criticise the government and its activities as much as you like, but you can never participate in the decision-making which will have a direct impact on your life, nor can you alter the stucture of the government in any meaningful way.

Just as it is here in Britain for example, you can criticise the Royal Family for all you like. But you know they are still going to be there sipping their tea tomorrow morning.

[American Kid]

What do you mean a simple citizen can't change things? What kind of pussy shit is that?

We're THEIR consituents (sic?). They eat out of our fuckin' dog bowl. It's our votes that------------- I don't know, pay for the abortions when they impregnate their interns and aides.

You get the point. I'm not buyin' it. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else on the planet.

Hell, in Brittain you couldn't even watch A Clockwork Orange until a year or so ago.

all class,
-AK

[LeonardoDaVinci]

Quote: from American Kid on 10:57 pm on Oct. 17, 2002

We're fucked up (I'm not idiot, I know this) but God love us,

God bless America
-AK


And why exactly would God love America more so than say poor Nicaragua????? What have the poor Nicaraguans done to incur the wrath of God?

That for me epitomises the misguided spirit of conservative christian America which has hijacked the ideals of the American Revolution and stripped it of the enlightenment values of the founding fathers and instead enshrined it in the frivolous dogmatic beliefs of eighteenth and nineteenth century protestant demagogues.

That is why many americans today have no qualms about their president using such simplistic terms as good versus evil (America being the good naturally) and why they still believe that God continues to bless America.

[LeonardoDaVinci]

AK, you don't believe me! fine, engage in this little experiment. Try to organise a mass demonstration outside the white house tomorrow demanding the introduction of universal healthcare in America, you can get as many protestors as you like 10 - 1000,000. We'll see if they listen or even put it under consideration. YOU and I both know that they won't, why? because the corporations won't approve of it.

Another experiment, you can circle a petition and demand the reduction of the defence budget in favour of improving education and social services. Will they approve of it? Well, I'm sure the arms industry will block any proposal even before it reaches the senate.

America is a democracy, but it's a corporate democracy, and any aspiring presidential candidate who exposes his social democratic credentials and professes his dissatisfaction with growing corporate power will almost entirely be looking at a bright future sweeping the floor at the House of Representatives.

[Guest]

Quote: from LeonardoDaVinci on 1:32 am on Oct. 18, 2002

Quote: from American Kid on 10:57 pm on Oct. 17, 2002

We're fucked up (I'm not idiot, I know this) but God love us,

God bless America
-AK


And why exactly would God love America more so than say poor Nicaragua????? What have the poor Nicaraguans done to incur the wrath of God?

That for me epitomises the misguided spirit of conservative christian America which has hijacked the ideals of the American Revolution and stripped it of the enlightenment values of the founding fathers and instead enshrined it in the frivolous dogmatic beliefs of eighteenth and nineteenth century protestant demagogues.

That is why many americans today have no qualms about their president using such simplistic terms as good versus evil (America being the good naturally) and why they still believe that God continues to bless America.

This is CI...

No one ever claimed that "God" whetever that is, loved America MORE than anyone else. "God bless America" is a benign statement, not a claim of superiority or preferential treatment.

And if you commie gadflys really believe that individuals or constituencies can't change the government, then I suggest you go back and study Roe Vs. Wade, the history of affirmative action (whether or not you agree with it), and California's Prop 209.

The politicians we elect nationally and the propositions and measures we vote directly on definately constitute the will of the people.

[Hattori Hanzo]

yes and no

one can have opinions, but the people have to unite to create successful socialism

[Jaha]

yeah.... i was thinking....

you know how we democratically elect representatives? why cant the citizens keep their power? why does the law say they MUST invest it in someone else? i say that i want to represent myself. and i want others to represent themselves. i dont want to invest power so that one man may act in the name of the people, i want the people to act for themselves. democracy in my mind exists so that "majority rules" doesnt turn into "mob rules"; not so that we can build a higherarchy.

[Iepilei]

nationalism is an old world concept...

our world is no longer flat.

[Blackberry]

Quote: from LeonardoDaVinci on 2:00 am on Oct. 18, 2002

America is a democracy, but it's a corporate democracy,


I believe it is called 'plutocracy', which therefore doesn't make it democracy.

[Valkyrie]

Jaha, what you described is direct democracy, or also anarchy. And I feel the same way--- those representatives elected in my area aren't representing my views. In fact, they seem to represent their own perogatives.

Bono, you are against aiding people in your own country who are not currently employed , the majority of those being women with children on social services, but you don't mind that your tax money is aiding the military to go slaughter people who are working and living in a Foreign country.

[PaulDavidHewson]

Bono, you are against aiding people in your own country who are not currently employed , the majority of those being women with children on social services, but you don't mind that your tax money is aiding the military to go slaughter people who are working and living in a Foreign country.


The reason I'm against welfare for the jobless is that it's heavily abused by a large portion of the dutch citizens.
Alot of immigrants and non-immigrants have never done a days worth of labor in their live in they play their cards correctly.
Also welfare for those incapabale to work should be mor closely scrutinsed.
I could make sure I don't have to work just by getting a doctor say i'm not capabale of woking yet.
(Yes, this would mean feigning a disease or other illment, like so many people do)
But I do think Woman with very young children should get welfare to make sure the kids have a good start to a proper youth.

Oh, an yes. I'm against large fundings of the dutch military. The Dutch are cooperating with the development of the F-22. Costs too much money and we don't need it. But the US convinced us otherwise somehow.
But I do think we need a standing army to fullfil our duties according to the NATO agreement.

[Guest]

Quote: from Jaha on 4:02 am on Oct. 18, 2002
yeah.... i was thinking....

you know how we democratically elect representatives? why cant the citizens keep their power? why does the law say they MUST invest it in someone else? i say that i want to represent myself. and i want others to represent themselves. i dont want to invest power so that one man may act in the name of the people, i want the people to act for themselves. democracy in my mind exists so that "majority rules" doesnt turn into "mob rules"; not so that we can build a higherarchy.


this is CI...

how will you operate the government of the most powerful nation on earth with almost 300 million people all representing themselves?

representative government is the best way to transfer the will of the people into a feasible system

[Iepilei]

representation is more than likely the most effective way of expressing democracy, I agree. Unless, you are able to place electronic voter booths on every street corner, in every house, complex, etc - announce every election topic, or allow people to (like a forum) select topics on which to vote... areas of choice... offer background information on the case - give case decriptions, show clips and commentaries...

possibly give awards to citizens who help play roles and help express their freedoms of voice.

[GUTB]

Representative goverment in a class society is nothing but a sham. The systems of democracy are highly artificial mechanisms products of enlighted human civilization used for self-control. The divisions of class, however, is a less-evolved, more primal and backwards product of human civilization.

The ruling class rule -- be it in a democracy or dictatorship. They rule because the class of society they were born in determines their role in life. For instance, can you point to a local political figure running for any kind of office that does not belong to the bourgeoisie? I bet you can -- just as you can point out any number of peasents who got land titles from the aristocracy during the Middle Ages. There is a tiny trickly of upward mobility between the classes, afterall -- but you will find the vast bulk, the overwhelming majority of all ruling systems to be filled out with the world's bourgeoisie. In such places where the bourgeoisie were stamped out, such as in the Soviet Union -- a new class developed to fill the upper echolons of class civilization. It must be kept in mind that the central feature of all Marxism is the class struggle -- the overthrow of all classes, and the casting off of the barbaric chains that shackle people into class partitions.

Democratic systems and class systems face each other in conflict. They are contrary to one another. However, the base, barbaric chains of class division cannot be defeated so easily. Once the masses of workers rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie -- and thus end all classes -- will the true power of democracy and representative goverment come to the fore.

What kind of sick farce is played out when several plutocrats who have, each of them, never worked an honest day in their whole lives and were born into power and influence, somehow are the only ones available to be voted on come election day? Why no taxi drivers? Why no steel mill workers? Examine that question carefully, and you will find your answer rooted into the nature of the class division.

[MaxB]

It sure does. I like to keep what I earn and if I want to share, does my decision---not some sanctimonious, self-righteous bureocrat. I'M NOT MY BROTHER'S KEEPER.
I work for my well being, not for the well being of the "masses".