Isn't Communism a little.. Purposeless?

The idea of a classless, stateless, moneyless society where everyone merely exists to meet each others basic necessities seems a little meaningless to me.

I mean, what would the purpose of it be? Nobody would aspire to do anything great, as everyone would be simply content with existing and meeting needs.

Yeah, it sounds very noble. Nobody would starve, nobody would envy anyone, and everyone will be an equal.

But isn't the beauty of life the fact that we're all uniquely different, and each one of us with our own unique purpose? That would all cease to exist under a communist system, as everyone would be confined to this created belief of "equality," when individuals are actually far from equals.

I don't know, but I can't see how a life without personal goals or achievements has any purpose at all. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

I think you fail to understand what the point is.

In capitalism, because we aren't free to fulfill our desires, we are stunted creatures. In a socialist society, because we're free to follow and have granted our desires, we can be whatever we want. It's socialist society that will enable us to persue our goals.

This is ridiculous.
People would exist, obviously, and they would perform useful labour in order that everyone's needs can be met, and from that point it'd be their own choice of what they want to do with themselves.

Paint the most exquisite paintings? Why not. Go mountain climbing and diving? Could do that. In fact, there's no reason whatsoever why people would be unable to do all sorts of things that could be both fulfilling to them on a personal lever and socially important.

You didn't actually write that you assume that people need to be downtrodden, exploited and oppressed in order to aspire to do something great. That assumption is the only possible one here given the conclusion.

If you do not feel that way, then why the hell would nobody aspire to do anything great?

Nobody would envy anyone? It just might be that you're mistaking communism for a starry eyed utopia wonderland.

No one has a unique purpose apart from the sting of choices and practices in life that can be rationalized as the "meaning of my life" or "my purpose". Are you religious by any chance?

Apart from that, communism would not - how the hell could it - abolish differences between individuals.

The term equality, in political discourse, does not refer to sameness.

Apart from that, how could a belief in equality eradicate personal differences? By some grand, devilish brainwashing process whereby people would be indoctrinated into acting and thinking like parts of a hive mind? I'm afraid that you got your impression of communism from extremely biased sources because this sounds like a crude caricature for anti-communist aims.

And yes, equality is practiced even in captialist society, and it is widely held as an ideal (political equality, equality before the law), so how come people are still different?


If anything, people would be effectively free to: 1) pursue more personal goals of their own due to a low level of labour time required and 2) engage in these practices to the fullest possible extent.

More and more purpose for everyone, as opposed to more and more of toil, something we have now.

You seem to conflate individuality and capitalism as complementing each other; which, when lacked, society would drift off into this malaise where no one aspires to anything. It doesn't make much sense mate. Under communism why would no one aspire to do anything? Simply because people have their needs met do they loose all their imagination and creativity? Is needing to be exploited and forced to be a wage-slave what's keeping the artistic impulse going? No, I do not think so.

Indeed you seem to have a stilted view of what equality means. I think you see equality as a sort of dystopian 1984 type of world where everyone wears, does, and talks the same and everyone has the same boring standard of living. Again this is not the case. Equality to use means social-equality where racism, queerphobia, classism, sexism, and chauvinism have been eliminated.

Things such as wealth redistribution, remedying income disparities, and such are concepts which occur, more or less, as side-effects. These concepts have little to do with the kind of equality we promote.

Didn't Oscar Wilde call America 'the Land of Individuality, where everyone eats the same, dresses the same and thinks the same'?

Or did I just imagine that?

From the comfort of his computer....
But anyway, the point of communism isn't to "advance society" or "make better systemz".

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Everything seems meaningless to me whats your point? lol. Also it isn't just to meet basic necessities lol, are you implying that when there is a communist revolution we are just going to demolish all of the guitar factories and yacht factories? Different people differ about how luxuries will be distributed, I personally feel that they should be dealt with in a sort of Co-op rental sort of way, so that everyone can have equal access to them.

*yawwwwwn* Rightist troll

Leisure society sounds so boring. All that leisure. Why would you want that when you've got the exciting thrills of wage slavery? Your life would be so boring if you weren't striving to keep a roof over your head, you need goals in life.

By that definition, communism sounds a lot like anarchy.

I'm sorry, it's just that I've never been able to see the link between communism and personal freedom.

For example; what if I wanted to travel the world? How could I afford to do so if I had no money? Would the entire world have to be communist as well, and my entire trip around the world be totally free?

Again, this is all very new to me.

I also see you have capitalism associated with wage slavery. Why?

Why is a person a wage slave, if not by his or her own choice? For example; I've worked a job where I busted my behind and felt exploited. So I quit. I was only a wage slave if I chose to be. Everyone has that choice. In fact, I know many people that choose to be wage slaves, and don't mind it at all. But nobody is forced to continue that "slavery."

Anarchy is essentially communism, so you are correct. However I am interested to know what your definition of anarchy is.

Yes, the whole world would have to be communist: the world would would have to achieve socialism then transition through communism. However, your second point is incorrect in its logic: abolishing money does not mean some have money and some do not, all of it is gone because it has become absolute. The world no longer runs on money, it runs through mutual exchange, what some might call, I believe, a "gift economy". If you wanted to travel the world you would be able to. I am hesitant to call it free since there are no prices and such but technically speaking it would be "free". However such a trip would have to be planned in advance so that another person's labor can fill in for your missing slot.

I have heard this same line from libertarians and it doesn't compute (as the robots say). You are a wage slave because in order to make a living in capitalist society you are forced to sell your labor power to capitalists; if you do not do this day in and day out than you loose all those cozy privileges we like to have (such as living indoors, eating fine foods, having electricity, etc). The fact that you can leave that employer for another doesn't change the fact you are compelled to continue selling your labor-power in exchange for personal living freedoms. If you are so inclined you do not have to sell your power but if you choose that I simply hope you have some friend or family you can live with that has no problem with paying for all your needs and loves you staying underneath their roof for nearly nothing in exchange.

My definition of Anarchy is a society without rules or authority. Primarily because there is no state to enforce anything.

If you say that there would be no state under communism, what's stopping someone from being a capitalist? I understand there would be no money involved, but as humas we will surely find something to exchange.

I was under the impression that communism needed a very oppressive government to keep people in line.

And about my last point about wage slavery; isn't it the same under communism?

So you're saying that in a capitalist society, you are forced to work in order to afford basic necessities, right? And if someone were to stop working, he or she would be kicked onto the street.

What if a person stopped working in a communist society? Would his/her neighbors work a little extra to support that person?

Also, if money goes away and everything becomes a mutual exchange, what happens to innovation? For example, how would the plane, electric light, gasoline, the automobile, ect.. have been invented under communism?

No, right now people don't have a choice but to be discontented with struggling to exist and struggling to meet their needs which often times don't get met which places them in a position to question their existence as a human, humiliation and misery and the more tangible result being poverty, declining health etc.. Post revolution there would be (there'd better be) the opening of free time to pursue whatever people want, occupation or fun, without the constraints of capital, hierarchy, 'authority'.

I can't think of a better reason for a global insurrection than because, despite how much we may have in common with a lot of other people, we are not homogenous workerbee slaves to be violently confined by class and social categories.

The nightmare you're describing is what we're living in and fighting against now.

You'll get a bunch of different replies to this but I think the absence of capital and the general atmosphere of resistance against capitalism will probably make it nearly impossible. I'd imagine a revolution will be at some point armed (looking differently depending on who you talk with) and if there are counter revolutionary attempts to reinstate the former systems of oppression they will probably be overthrown. Theoretically speaking I'd like to see a few capitalists attempt to re-enslave workers in that kind of atmosphere I think their failure would be rather amusing to watch with the level of resistance and outright non-cooperation floating about.


Some authoritarian elements would probably hang onto the state or some form of it and kick their feet back and they'll deny this right now but this isn't representative of communism across the board.

I'm opposed to forced work cause it feels like a recreation of the same elements of production, distro/exchange that I currently cannot stand. Arguably the working days/weeks would be much shorter with lots of vacation and free medical options or whatever

I'd hope they'd still have access to everything anybody else had.



Why would inventions be different under communism? In theory, more free time, less stress, more discovery and creation without monetary incentive to do so. Less, if any at all, cut throat cloak and dagger industry shit.

So in essence, communism is anarchy without money. Then is socialism the "stepping stone" to achieve this? Because you can't expect to enforce communism without a state.

Socialism would have a big state, steep progressive taxation, massive wealth redistribution, and then communism would come along and abolish the monetary system as well as de-instate the state. Am I close?

And I'm curious as to why you think that a person that stops working should continue to enjoy the benefits provided by the ones who do work. What if everyone stopped working? Think about it; if one person does it, and then another, I don't think that would go very well by those that do work. Personally, I wouldn't be inclined to work if I could stop and continue receiving benefits; specially if others were already doing it.

And you mentioned we're free to pursue our hobbies.

My hobbies include building computers and cars.

Under communism, how would I get the computer hardware? Who would "pay" for it? Could I just walk into a store, pick out the parts I want and leave? Who would even manufacture the computer parts?

The same goes for cars. Who would manufacture them? How could I get one? If there's no money, what would be a comparable "favor" in exchange for a car? Or would there simply be no cars in communism?

Would we be limited to simple hobbies like climbing trees, flying a kite, cooking, ect..?

I'd say there are a fair few anarchists who would argue against currency, as well. Myself among them.

The idea is not to "enforce" communism, since you can't force anyone to be free. Libertarian socialists generally agree that communism should come about because that what's in the best interests of the working class in the short term and all of humanity in the long term.

If you assume we're social democrats. Which we're not. We're revolutionaries, which means we advocate the working class seizing the means of production.

Why would everyone stop working? If they were to do that, then their quality of life would according decrease. Most people want a better quality of life, in my experience.

So how would you occupy your time? Wouldn't you get bored, at the very least?

Well, there you go then. There is something useful that you enjoy doing.

Other people who have an interest in designing and producing computers, of course. Production is a social rather than individual phenomenon, even under capitalism.

As above.

I don't see why we should be limited in such a manner.

I think it should also be pointed out that we are capable of producing an incredible amount with very, very little labor these days. With a society that gears production towards meeting need and wants, I'd say it wouldn't be long before the question of "who will make the stuff" is just a minor detail.

I believe inventions would be very different without capital.

Where would you get the materials for your inventions? Where would you find all the supplies you need? And more importantly than that, where is the need to innovate?

I'll give you an example.

Computers have come a long way since they were created. Processors are getting faster and better every few months. Why? Because of competition. If Intel releases a faster processor than AMD, AMD would have to innovate other wise they'd go out of business. Hence, we get innovation.

Under communism, why would they feel the need to innovate further? And if they did, how would they fund their innovation?

The same can be said about any field. Medicine for example has advanced partly because of the advances in technology. Better, faster, more advanced computers have significantly shaped the face of medicine today.

And all those advances and innovations were made because of a profit incentive. Call it immoral, but thanks to it we have the medical system we have today. How would you say that would all operate under communism? And again, the same could be said about every industry. Henry Ford for example redefined the auto industry and how automobiles were made. How would he have accomplished that under communism?

It seems to me as though communism is a very primitive idea, and can only truly exist without technology, things that require complex innovation, and human's natural tendency for competition.

The majority of progress with computers was made as a result of the military-industrial complex. Computers were designed as devices to make calculations on the first atomic bombs and functioned as ballistics calculators. The internet was of course a military communications network. Even the first video game "Space War!" was developed on a WWII radar screen at MIT, which was funded almost entirely by the Department of Defense for a while. Sometimes the military goes to the private sector to meet their needs, thus "military-industrial."

The story about capitalistic technology being the result of our brave, heroic innovators is a myth on par with the stories of ancient Greek demigod warriors.

This troll is rubbish. Seems to have no reading comprehension. Repeats self frequently, asks the same questions that have been answered, seems unable to creatively apply the answers in any reasonable way, presumably because it is either here to raise some noise or because it's too stubborn to care, in either case it's obviously pointless to try to argue with it.

I mean, go ahead and do it, it is amusing, but have no illusions about sincere intent from our esteemed guests side!