I'm thinking about joining the Communist Party

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Chika

Generally, you can't count "to make me feel better" as a reason to do something..

Thats pretty much the main reason for everything I do, whether directly or indirectly.

I'm afraid I don't know too much about communism beyond some basic tenets, which I think T&F has already stated. It does sound nice and all, but the practicalities of things are where I have found it to fall down.

Not that I think the current system "works" to any long-term extent (whilst not knowing too much about communism I have read and agreed with a fair bit of Marxism), but I have the common problem of having no idea what I would replace it with.

[Charjerk]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

Not that I think the current system "works" to any long-term extent (whilst not knowing too much about communism I have read and agreed with a fair bit of Marxism), but I have the common problem of having no idea what I would replace it with.

It is not necessarily people's conscious efforts that brings about a new system. Things have to take their own course, and we, as human beings, are part of that course. It is life itself as a whole that decides what the current system is to be replaced with. It is just important to know that every system creates the germs of its own destruction for the gradual establishment of something relatively better. I do not mean to say that everything is purely spontaneous, at the end of the day we are part of a huge evolutionary process, and we can only experiment and learn from our experiences, and therefore we make the history.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Charjerk

Thanks. although it is not very encouraging to sound like somebody's ex. Well... I am a Marxian who had to know about Hegel too.

Sorry to cause bad memories to surface, mate.

shit, i want to be a marxian.

also, madi and to some degree mist seem to be arguing their corners by respondin to every counterargument with a progressively sillier argument.

[mist]

at least we're progressive \o/

you'll notice i stopped posting a while back when i realised just how out of my depth i was tho, i'm still not convinced that communism deals particularly well with the loveliness that is some parts of humanity, i guess i'm not particicularly convinced that the current system deals with them very well either tho. i guess i'm in the "devil you know" camp, really.

[Jennifer]

I'm not sure about this whole communist idea. I don't think the problem is necessarily that people are greedy, but more that people are lazy. If you're not working hard for your own future, and to improve your own standard of living, isn't there going to be the temptation to sit back and let everyone else carry you? I mean, there are few enough people out there willing to work for their own sake.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Unfortunately this ignores the simple fact that Lenin grounded his theory solidly in Marx's writings. And Stalinism was simply the genocidal extension of the system Lenin (And Trotsky, by the way) had been pivotal in establishing.

You call it "bastardisation"; I call it legitimate (Albeit horribly mistaken) interpretation.

If you had tried to read Marx and Lenin before posting, you might not have made a fool out of yourself (again).

Lenin's ideas are not the same as Marx. Lenin didnt even get Hegel before 1914 or something...
Then there is notable differences between the two, like the theories on stages. Lenin wrote that you can go from feudalism to capitalism straight away, while Marx thesis was that you had to go from feudalims to capitalism and then have a revolution and go into socialism.

[G.K Zhukov]

When it comes to communist parties/groups in the USA, I would be a bit sceptical towards CPUSA.

The only group I have personally had anything to do with, is this one: http://www.freedomroad.org/
They are in the maoist tradiition, but dont seem very ortodox or theory-obsessed at all. The main focus of the organisation seems to be directed against the war. If I were you, I would take contact with them, as I think they are worth trying.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Boogster

There's no need to commit to a pseudo-utopian fantasy just to make your distaste of inequality public. Politics muddles matters.

You can't actually be "non-political". Having a stance on inequality is a political stance. Sure, you don't have to commit to a systematic approach, or even one particular guiding ideal, but you will have politics. Saying politics "muddles" things is as strange as condemning ethics in general.

[mist]

Lenin wrote that you can go from feudalism to capitalism straight away, while Marx thesis was that you had to go from feudalims to capitalism and then have a revolution and go into socialism.

i don't understand how going feudalism-capitolism-socialism precludes going feudalism-capitolism?

or isn't that what you meant?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by mist

i don't understand how going feudalism-capitolism-socialism precludes going feudalism-capitolism?

or isn't that what you meant?

I think he meant from feudalism=>socialism in one go, not feudalism=>capitalism.

[Charjerk]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

while Marx thesis was that you had to go from feudalims to capitalism and then have a revolution and go into socialism.

I think this part is most controversial since Marx made contradicting statements. The only place he said something like that is the Critique of the Gotha Programme. In other places he said that socialism will appear out of the interstices of capitalism, which makes the issue/place of a revolution really questionable. You can refer to some Zmag writers.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Charjerk

I think this part is most controversial since Marx made contradicting statements. The only place he said something like that is the Critique of the Gotha Programme. In other places he said that socialism will appear out of the interstices of capitalism, which makes the issue/place of a revolution really questionable. You can refer to some Zmag writers.

I think we can all safely assume that Russia that 1917 Russia fulfilled none of these requirements.

[Charjerk]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

I think we can all safely assume that Russia that 1917 Russia fulfilled none of these requirements.

Such historical experiments are merely quantitative explosions, the experience of which should help the world to prepare the path to real qualitative change. At least most people know what not to do.

[Nodrog]

Your reasons seem fairly shallow and appear to be based more on a vague dislike of consumerism rather than any deep appreciation of political principles.I'd suggest reading more about communism/marxism before you done something like joining a political party dedicated to promoting that movements. For instance, do you have any understanding of Marxism beyond "people shouldnt care so much about buying expensive things, also it sucks that some people are so poor " (and these 2 things arent particularly central to Marxism anyway - theyre more 'bog-standard liberal' than anything else).

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

If you had tried to read Marx and Lenin before posting, you might not have made a fool out of yourself (again).

Lenin's ideas are not the same as Marx. Lenin didnt even get Hegel before 1914 or something...
Then there is notable differences between the two, like the theories on stages. Lenin wrote that you can go from feudalism to capitalism straight away, while Marx thesis was that you had to go from feudalims to capitalism and then have a revolution and go into socialism.

Things look closer together the further away from them youre standing. For people who have no real affinity towards Communism, the differences between the ideas of Marx and the ideas of someone like Lenin or Trotsky are minimal - although they disagree on specific doctrinal points, they tend to share a common ground and agree on most fundamentals. In other words, its a family quarrel. Marxists can argue for hours about how to sanitise certain parts of Marx's writing from pseudo-Hegelian metaphysics, or discuss various competiting theories on why the 'inevitable' revolution didnt occur. But to outsiders, its all pretty much the same.

Similarly, I would assume that to a Creationist, the evolutionary theory of Darwin and the modern theory probably look identical, despite the large amounts of differences that someone who studies it will find (Darwin was wrong about many things). I recognise very little differnece between fascism, national socialism and soviet communism because they agree on what I view as the essentials (largely pertaining the role of the individual in relation to state). Yet to a proponent of one of these doctrines, they would look as dissimilar as red and blue.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

People seem to have some ridiculously simplistic notion of how social change would or might operate. As if one day all the shops would stop paying their workers and giving their produce for free and then be surprised when everything collapsed. Shockingly, that's not quite how things would work.

Well, given that (to my no knowledge) no Communist has bothered to write a non-trivial description of how a 'classless society' would actually function on a day-to-day basis, I dont think that people can be blamed for pointing out what seem to be the obvious flaws in the system. Even the anarcho-capitalist loons have had the intellectual honesty to descend from the cloudy realms of abstract political theory and put forwards concrete ideas of how they think their nutty utopia would manage to support itself . But communists, for some reason, dont seem to have felt this need (even while actually trying to implement it).

Leaving aside the morality aspects of why Communism is fundamentally evil, there do seem to be rather strong pragmatic arguments that nothing would actually get in a classless society due to (eg) lack of motivation and free-rider problems, along with (what I see as being conclusive) arguments by (eg) Nozick showing that any non-coercive society must inevitably tend towards an inequal distribution of wealth/resources due to natural differences in talent. Just waving your hands and saying that 'in our new world everyone would be different' doesnt really constitute a rebuttal. I think the points madi made in this thread are essentially correct* and I dont think anyone has managed to give a convincing refutation of them (either here or elsewhere).


* although I wouldnt have phrased them in that way. Talking about 'greed' frames the debate in a way that favours the communist side, because it implies that there's something inherantly wrong with people being primarilly concerned for themselves and their own interests, rather than those of their society/state/class/village/neighbours/race/species. There isnt.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I dont think that people can be blamed for pointing out what seem to be the obvious flaws in the system.

My main problem with people pointing out flaws in "the system" is that (as you go on to say) they are criticising a system which no-one has described! As far as I can see, Madi is criticising nothing at all, or perhaps criticising an episode of Star Trek she might have seen (I'm not really sure).

Even if we're talking about the Soviet Union as a model of Communism (which obviously I'm not), it'd be ludicrous to say that what caused it's failure was "human nature" (except in an utterly meaningless sense). Wages were still paid in the USSR, goods still had prices, etc. And in which case yeah, we're all pretty much on the same side (except maybe Zhukov ) in saying the USSR sucked and we can end the thread here.

But communists, for some reason, dont seem to have felt this need (even while actually trying to implement it).

That's because day-to-day descriptions are (a) prescriptive which we're trying to escape from, (b) at best borderline utopian masturbation pieces, (c) idealism (again, also non-Marxist).

To my knowledge, no-one during the period of feudalism wrote about how the day-to-day workings of a modern capitalist liberal democracy would work either, but that hardly minimised criticism (or the desire to change) away from feudalism.

These things are about directions, not end points (to paraphrase Theamion's sig). Lenin's notion of socialism was completely different from his notion of communism for instance (as far as he had one). The end-end result (if we can talk about such a thing - I don't think you can) would probably look fairly like how some anarchists talk about things, but really I think that's the domain of sci-fi writers, not political activisits.

Nozick showing that any non-coercive society must inevitably tend towards an inequal distribution of wealth/resources due to natural differences in talent.

I'm not sure what you mean by "non-coercive" - I'd say any system with private property which is enforced by violence is certainly coercive, but I doubt you'd agree. But an unequal distribution of resources does not necessarily imply a non-classless society. In fact, it'd be absurd in the extreme (as I have said many times before) to presume in a "perfect" classless society that we'd either have (or desire) equal distribution of resources - because such a thing does not make sense. People have different needs, talents, desires and abilities. This leads to a different distribution pattern of resources. This is not necessarily a problem.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

My main problem with people pointing out flaws in "the system" is that (as you go on to say) they are criticising a system which no-one has described! As far as I can see, Madi is criticising nothing at all, or perhaps criticising an episode of Star Trek she might have seen (I'm not really sure).

Well in that case, the same applies to those supporting such a system. Terms like 'classless society' arent inherantly meaningful - the onus is on the users of these phrases to describe what they mean, and part of this will necessarily involve a description of what such a thing looks like. We could create a classless society tomorrow sipmly by removing the word 'class' from all English dictionaries. But this presumeably isnt what communists have in mind. Which leads to the question, what precisely do they have in mind?

Even if we're talking about the Soviet Union as a model of Communism (which obviously I'm not), it'd be ludicrous to say that what caused it's failure was "human nature"

I dont think thats ludicrous at all. Perhaps it might be iff you considered that statement in a vacuum, but most people who use it in a serious argument will provide a description of what they take to be human nature, and an explanation of why communism is antithetical to it.

That's because day-to-day descriptions are (a) prescriptive which we're trying to escape from, (b) at best borderline utopian masturbation pieces, (c) idealism (again, also non-Marxist).

Explaining what youre talking about is neither prescriptive nor utopian - its just a prelude to having meaningful debate in a public language. There appears to be obvious problems with communism. None of these have been substantially addressed in the literature (to my knowledge). Trying to wave away the questions seems dishonest.

To my knowledge, no-one during the period of feudalism wrote about how the day-to-day workings of a modern capitalist liberal democracy would work either, but that hardly minimised criticism (or the desire to change) away from feudalism.

Well, the switch from feudalism to capitalism wasnt planned or predicted the way communism has been - its not like a group of intellectuals sat around consciously plotting a capitalist european social revolution. Besides, both the everyday and theoretical aspects of classical liberalism were routinely discussed in the literature once the Enlightenment project was underway (eg Locke, Smith, Mill, and even (yuck) Rousseau).

These things are about directions, not end points

Yes, and I would say that the fact there were no real plans or directives was one of the main reasons why the Russian revolution resulted in the Soviet Union. Noone stopped to ask basic questions like "what the hell are we actually going to do?" or "why do we think that our totalitarian government is going to nicely hand over its power once it has been created?" because they were under the delusion that communism was inevitable (im obviously oversimplifying things here). Unsurprisingly, the 'end point' was in the death of untold millions. Yet people appear to have not learned from these mistakes, and still seem to have no qualms about jumping into huge social reconstruction projects without having the faintest idea what theyre doing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "non-coercive" - I'd say any system with private property which is enforced by violence is certainly coercive, but I doubt you'd agree. But an unequal distribution of resources does not necessarily imply a non-classless society.

Well, what precisely does the term 'non-classless society' mean? If we have a communist society with a fairly unequal distribution of wealth and 'government' by the elected representatives of localised groups of works , then what are the non-semantic differences between this and a decentralised liberal utopia?

[lokken]

The things that piss me off most about capitalist society is the disproportionate amount of waste it produces and the stupid amount of greed it promotes.

Society needs to take action to eliminate these problems, quickly.

[Nodrog]

Unless you're referring specifically to pollution, I dont see why waste is a bad thing. If anything, being able to produce more than you consume is a sign of prosperity. Most civilizations throughout history havent been able to produce enough to even feed and clothe their people.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Unless you're referring specifically to pollution, I dont see why waste is a bad thing. If anything, being able to produce more than you consume is a sign of prosperity. Most civilizations throughout history havent been able to produce enough to even feed and clothe their people.

waste is a bad thing when there are finite resources and people with insufficient resources.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Phang

waste is a bad thing when there are finite resources and people with insufficient resources.

Without the productivity that resulted from capitalism and mass production, there would be far fewer resources. Capitalism might generate 'waste' (whatever that means), but the total production is likely to be a lot higher than under other systems. I'd rather produce 100000 units of X a year with 20% of them being wasted, than produce 10000 with no wasteage.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Your reasons seem fairly shallow and appear to be based more on a vague dislike of consumerism rather than any deep appreciation of political principles.I'd suggest reading more about communism/marxism before you done something like joining a political party dedicated to promoting that movements. For instance, do you have any understanding of Marxism beyond "people shouldnt care so much about buying expensive things, also it sucks that some people are so poor " (and these 2 things arent particularly central to Marxism anyway - theyre more 'bog-standard liberal' than anything else).

I admit that I haven't read much on the theory of these movements. I don't think my reasons are shallow. Practically everyday in Tucson I'm confronted with stinging poverty, and I have a fundemental understanding of the causes for global poverty and the literature written about it. My biggest issue with communism is the call for 'revolution.' I don't believe revolutions work the way people intend, they often take a life of their own. I feel that you haven't taken the time to read what I've said in the past and that you have a unjustified low appreciation for my ability to comprehend ideas.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by s|k

I admit that I haven't read much on the theory of these movements. I don't think my reasons are shallow. Practically everyday in Tucson I'm confronted with stinging poverty, and I have a fundemental understanding of the causes for global poverty and the literature written about it.

You see, I wouldnt say that any of this is directly related to communism. There are many groups out there decrying poverty and globalisation for whatever reasons, from moderate liberals to anarchists. But a desire to see a 'fairer, nicer world' does not commit one to the kind of radical social reconstruction called for by communists.

In any case, its difficult to see why a shift away from capitalism would necessarily lead to a reduction in global poverty. I dont think that Marx's anti-capitalist arguments were directly related to this sort of thing. Marx didnt deny that capitalism was a productive system which tended to increase wealth - his criticisms centered around unsustainability (demonstrably wrong), and more 'spiritual' issues relating to (eg) alienation and fetishism.

My biggest issue with communism is the call for 'revolution.' I don't believe revolutions work the way people intend, they often take a life of their own. I feel that you haven't taken the time to read what I've said in the past and that you have a unjustified low appreciation for my ability to comprehend ideas.

I dont have a low appreciation for your ability to comprehend ideas, but your original post suggested that you hadnt really been exposed to the ideas. Again, ending global poverty is not the same thing as communism. Communism involves a radically new conception of society which is rooted in certain conceptions of sociology, history and human nature. Its not just the desire to eliminate poverty, or achieve liberal project X.

[Charjerk]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

So no prescriptions, no ideology's, no dogma about classless society's and workers councils. If you see something's wrong, you say "that's wrong, listen to me damn you I said that's wrong." People are dying by the thousand, that's wrong. Some have more money than they could ever spend in one hundred lifetimes and many have nothing and live just long enough to see their children die in their arms, that's wrong. You don't need to read Marx to know that, you don't need to have a PHD in ethics to see that and know that and call it for what it is. Its not good enough, its not acceptable and I will not stand for it. We can argue on this thread all day and all night and all week and all year and that will not change the simple unstoppable truth about the pathetic failures of the society we live in and why things much change now to stop this horror.

Lenin had a principle called "patiently explaining". It is very famous. Many marxist-leninists use it ( and then go and shot their friends but thats another issue). Would anybody here argue for the sake of arguing. I don't think so. People are asking questions about this system, articulating sorts of dissatisfaction. People are looking for solutions does not matter what kind of language they are using. This is a good thing and requires patiently explaining.

People make assumptions about how this system works and what the next system may be like. It is not enough to say that something is wrong and that it has to be stopped. When will it start to stop and who will stop it?The very people you are talking to every single day. When will/can they stop it? When they have a common agenda.How do you think we get there from here. Through prescriptions, right or wrong.A system with a very rigid structure is imposing itself on our life every single second.Can you stop anyhing on your own. No. You need people.And the only way to change a system with a structure, is to adopt a common agenda with a rigid structure together with people. We are talking about a global system. And there are millions of sheeps outside. And as long as there are sheeps, there will be shepherds.This how life works.This is the reality of life.Some people will always shout lauder than others.And some who are shouting laud but with a sense of direction, knowledge and confidence will silence the others.This is why/how societies create people called heroes.There will be heroes and leaders until the whole society owns/takes over the knowledge, courage, self confidence of a hero or leader.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Charjerk

It is not enough to say that something is wrong and that it has to be stopped. When will it start to stop and who will stop it?The very people you are talking to every single day. When will/can they stop it? When they have a common agenda.How do you think we get there from here. Through prescriptions, right or wrong.A system with a very rigid structure is imposing itself on our life every single second.Can you stop anyhing on your own. No. You need people.And the only way to change a system with a structure, is to adopt a common agenda with a rigid structure together with people. We are talking about a global system. And there are millions of sheeps outside. And as long as there are sheeps, there will be shepherds.This how life works.This is the reality of life.Some people will always shout lauder than others.And some who are shouting laud but with a sense of direction, knowledge and confidence will silence the others.This is why/how societies create people called heroes.There will be heroes and leaders until the whole society owns/takes over the knowledge, courage, self confidence of a hero or leader.

Please send further information concerning your cult/religion/campaign for US president.

[Charjerk]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I disagree that the only way to stop a system with a structure is adopt a more rigid structure. Talk of sheep and shepherds is patronising and almost Christian and needs to be challenged. Who will be led, will you be led, will I be led? Everyone believes themselves to be qualified shepherds and everyone else to be willing sheep.

T&F,

I cannot say that what is needed is a 'more' rigid structure. Let me try to put it this way. You have a worldwide enemy outside. They have a plan, programme, a structure, purpose, resources, etc etc. How can you attack without something similar.The enemy is one and many at the same time, organised and close to one another as flesh and bone. How can you fight if you don't establish a huge, organised body yourself. That is why socialist/communist ...ist parties or groups are established in the first place. Some sort of organisation is almost a semi-conscious choice, A requirement in class-based societies.It is a war. And no war can be won without proper planning.

And, friend, analogies are innocent. You may find it harsh. But it is the real harsh world. You could be so harsh about being able to say that something is wrong and that it has to be changed. Why cant you accept that until liberation of the whole world becomes the product of the whole peoples of the world, some people will lead and others will be led. Does not matter if everyone thinks of themselves as qualified shepherds. Life knows how to elect and eliminate. It has always been so. I just hope that it will not continue this way.

Masses need to learn from their experiences. I am talking about a process, a very long one.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Charjerk

You have a worldwide enemy outside. They have a plan, programme, a structure, purpose, resources, etc etc. How can you attack without something similar.The enemy is one and many at the same time, organised and close to one another as flesh and bone.

There is a very real question whether this is true. It seems almost a truism that "we" must adopt the same tactics as "them", but that is not exactly clear. They have conscription? Should we? They have concentration camps, should we? And so on.

If nothing else, historically the vanguard model has failed horrifically in the developed capitalist countries (in particular the English speaking ones) and one has to ask serious questions whether it's a route we wish to even consider. Personally I'd say a loose knit, distributed model of rebellion would be infinitely more likely to succeed than the collection of easy-to-infiltrate, willing to split sects arguing if they are the true descendents of Leon Trotsky or whatever.

[Charjerk]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

There is a very real question whether this is true. It seems almost a truism that "we" must adopt the same tactics as "them", but that is not exactly clear. They have conscription? Should we? They have concentration camps, should we? And so on.

If nothing else, historically the vanguard model has failed horrifically in the developed capitalist countries (in particular the English speaking ones) and one has to ask serious questions whether it's a route we wish to even consider. Personally I'd say a loose knit, distributed model of rebellion would be infinitely more likely to succeed than the collection of easy-to-infiltrate, willing to split sects arguing if they are the true descendents of Leon Trotsky or whatever.

I am not saying that we must adopt the same tactics, copy everything. All I am saying is that we need a planned, programmed way of struggle. Excuse me, I am no fascist not an authoritarian bastard.

T&F. You really have a problem with analogies dont you.I meant to say that Capitalism is the enemy of the peoples.

[Charjerk]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If nothing else, historically the vanguard model has failed horrifically in the developed capitalist countries (in particular the English speaking ones) and one has to ask serious questions whether it's a route we wish to even consider. Personally I'd say a loose knit, distributed model of rebellion would be infinitely more likely to succeed than the collection of easy-to-infiltrate, willing to split sects arguing if they are the true descendents of Leon Trotsky or whatever.

I absolutely agree with you about that. But even this loose knit model itself needs to be structured. Not like a vanguard model.

[Charjerk]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

You sound fairly authoritarian when you speak of shepherds.

Well Capitalism is just a system of distribution. It is an undesirable system and to the extent which it is organised by the ruling class it can be classified as an enemy but its fast and fluid, when you think you have landed a punch it comes back sronger. The system is ultimately self defeating. The key is whether by then it will be too late.

There are millions of educated idiots and psychopats out there, millions of alienated people, millions who say 'i love standard life'. Thousands are illiterate. I do not think it is authoritarian to say that somebody has to tell this people what is happening and what needs to be done, and help them to educate tehmselves. It will HAPPEN. It is HAPPENING NOW.I am only a realist and hate authoritarianism. Capitalism is not just a system of distribution, it is a system of production, that is where the problems spring. Marx says that.
Perhaps you need to read Grundrisse and Das Capital.

And if capitalism is fast and fluid, the opposite camp should learn to be so. It comes back stronger: Then you need to be prepared to regroup.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I think that whilst it is fair for Nod to say that in fact most of the capitalist critique in commmon currency is actually Liberal critique rather than Communist critique (If you read Adam Smith for example, or James Madison (famous liberal writers) they were horrified by the sort of market capitalism we have today) However Nod you are being unfair. Firstly it is clear that Liberalism is actually the dominant ideology in the world, even amogst the very wealthy. However it is idealistic, its arguments based on a moral grounding and it has not done enough to slow down the rampage of Capitalism. Had Liberalism worked our democratic Government would have been able to sort out the problems. They have not and indeed cannot. People are aware of this. They are aware of the contradiction between what ought to be the case and what is the case and they know they need a stronger critique to get things done, to make their point.

So no prescriptions, no ideology's, no dogma about classless society's and workers councils. If you see something's wrong, you say "that's wrong, listen to me damn you I said that's wrong." People are dying by the thousand, that's wrong. Some have more money than they could ever spend in one hundred lifetimes and many have nothing and live just long enough to see their children die in their arms, that's wrong. You don't need to read Marx to know that, you don't need to have a PHD in ethics to see that and know that and call it for what it is. Its not good enough, its not acceptable and I will not stand for it. We can argue on this thread all day and all night and all week and all year and that will not change the simple unstoppable truth about the pathetic failures of the society we live in and why things much change now to stop this horror.

Yeah, this is great, and you're probably right but people are not always aware, and many who are will not act upon this awareness.

[Charjerk]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well people disagree that is pluralism. You can't be suprised that people disagree there are many reasons for this. I agreee its not authoritarian to inform people, that is what I have been advocating, that is what I try to do in some small way. Up until this point you have not been saying this this but talking of leaders and heroes, that is different.

You are right of course I was being glib about Capitalism. Let me be more clear.

The best way for people to fight capitalism is for people to be able to take control of their own lives. It shouldn't take a huge degree of education for people to realise that things aren't right. You see evidence of this on these forums, by people's rejection of authority both legal and intellectual. People here don't accept what they are told. They don't have to be Communists to do this. Armed with this confidence people's day to day decisions are more logical and more informed. These decisions stack up and the world changes. No one here is guided by anyone, they do what they please and apologise to no one. That seems to be the best way to me.

The left is in crisis but because of that it has never been stronger, rather than blindly following some leader or subscribing to some dogma people are forced to stand alone and speak for themselves and justify themselves. This makes life hard and it would be nice if everyone I met said 'T&F you are so right, everything you say is wise and profound', but as soon as that happened I would know I was not doing my job. I am an annoying dissident, I take it upon myself to nag and challenge and bully for progress. Not everyone can or should be that way.

The Simpsons has already dealt with this. You have your Homer and Marge who are regular people blundering through life. Who would want to change such people? Do we want a society of Lisa's preaching to everyone? We prefer instead the anarchy of Bart, he sets the example with his complete lack of respect for authority, his relative lack of self-doubt and his pursuit of happiness.

There are things that I am not sure about. Maybe in Europe movements are more or less leaderless, but in otehr parts of the world there are people who stand forward and lead the masses. People in places like Latin America or East Asia have traditional ways of struggle and they do look up to leaders. I may not be able to look at the world through European glasses
You sound even more optimistic than me. People taking control of their own life, making their own decisions, and boom the world changes? I wish it was really so straightforward. No-one is guided by anyone? The development of Marxism in the west is under the control of some stupid Socialist Worker people, or other famous writers of other organisations or papers. People are not just under the yoke of capitalism. They are still dealing with centuries old questions, still arguing about stages, necessity of armed insurrection while the media is manufacturing consent, youth burying their sorrow in glasses,taking drugs for the sake of an hours relaxation,oh yeah, also while thousands of children in the UK are living under the poverty line. This cannot be called making own decisions and changing the world. Everything is an alienated response to alienation.
Read something on Zmag. A writer talking about Fromm's Sane Society. Well, he is right. The chaos we are living in seems to have become our normality.

Real transformation takes something more than a simple isolated no. Life is no theatre stage or little squares on a film. We need annoying dissidents to organise themselves, in a non-authoritarian manner, and create organised widespread dissidence that has a plan. Old communist/socialist castle like organisations are in fact made of paper. If one knows what he is talking about, refute the dogmas inherited from the past, then it should be possible simultaneously grow and fight, change and protect, learn and teach.

[Charjerk]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Being alienated is not a sign of weakness. Alienation makes people reassess what's important and uproots conservatism.

I am not sure that people are orgabising themselves. Even if that is so, for instance, even if there developed a huge movement through snowballing, when the tide fades away what you usually have is the usual basic elements. Life itself has its own way of dealing with pluralism I guess.

Alienation is of course not a sign of weakness. But it does not always help people reassess things before being destructive/self-destructive. The energy gained through alienation has to be channelled and shaped, directed towards the real target, the system.

[Charjerk]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well that's where we will have to disagree. Its a matter of opinion.

Fair dues.

I worked with drug addicts and ex-prisoners for a while. They really hated the way their life was controlled by others. But they took it out on themselves and their immediate environment. I realised that given the opportunity,help they were the ones who could be really useful to the world. I saw that even utmost alienation created potential. Those twisted personalities needed only understanding, trust and opportunity to stand on their own feet. This could turn them into sharpest and most consistent part of the fighting masses.

Well..thats something from my experience.

[KoeN]

Originally Posted by Charjerk

I worked with drug addicts and ex-prisoners for a while. They really hated the way their life was controlled by others. But they took it out on themselves and their immediate environment. I realised that given the opportunity,help they were the ones who could be really useful to the world. I saw that even utmost alienation created potential. Those twisted personalities needed only understanding, trust and opportunity to stand on their own feet. This could turn them into sharpest and most consistent part of the fighting masses.

it's people like you who came up with the idea to 'cure' murderers, rapists, peadophiles and other mental sick ****s in special clinics.

it's people like you who came up with the idea to allow them to have 'vacation' from the clinic if they behave well in there.

often these lunatics escapes from the clinic, or never return from such a vacation, to then go kill/rape more people. i don't see how you can keep believing in being able to actually change a person's mind.

imo the western world would be better off by reintroducing the deathpenalty (if the crime is big enough and it's 100% sure who did it, ofc). it'd be a whole lot cheaper, it'd save out space in prisons, it'd scare off potential new criminals and it'd make sure heavy criminals wouldn't repeat their own 'mistakes'.

[Charjerk]

Originally Posted by KoeN

it's people like you who came up with the idea to 'cure' murderers, rapists, peadophiles and other mental sick ****s in special clinics.

it's people like you who came up with the idea to allow them to have 'vacation' from the clinic if they behave well in there.

often these lunatics escapes from the clinic, or never return from such a vacation, to then go kill/rape more people. i don't see how you can keep believing in being able to actually change a person's mind.

imo the western world would be better off by reintroducing the deathpenalty (if the crime is big enough and it's 100% sure who did it, ofc). it'd be a whole lot cheaper, it'd save out space in prisons, it'd scare off potential new criminals and it'd make sure heavy criminals wouldn't repeat their own 'mistakes'.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...30&ItemID=9354

My answer.

Oh, and ..thanks

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Charjerk

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...30&ItemID=9354

My answer.

You are just adorable

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by KoeN

it's people like you who came up with the idea to 'cure' murderers, rapists, peadophiles and other mental sick ****s in special clinics.

They were talking about ex-prisoners - i.e. people already released from prison (i.e. deemed to be safe / served their debt to society). Ex-prisoners could be cover all manner of offences, and given the statistics it's unlikely they were dealing directly with large numbers of murderers.

imo the western world would be better off by reintroducing the deathpenalty (if the crime is big enough and it's 100% sure who did it, ofc).

How exactly would we ever know "100%" that they did it?

[KoeN]

Originally Posted by Charjerk

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...30&ItemID=9354

My answer.

Oh, and ..thanks

prejudice is human, and therefor can not be considered as a mental illness. there is no human being on this planet with no prejudices towards anything.



ps it's amusing to see how quickly i got people up the wall there, with my previous post.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by KoeN

ps it's amusing to see how quickly i got people up the wall there, with my previous post.

Yes, it's possible to post something very foolish and obtain a quick response from people. Well done on this discovery, although I think there might be some prior art on this one if you're thinking of heading over to the patent office.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

You are just adorable

He's figured things out fast.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by s|k

He's figured things out fast.

Not too quickly. He still posts like he's addressing a group of ten year olds and uses far too many analogies for my positivist ****wit outlook on things.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators, the creator seeks - those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

too many analogies

Analogies are as fantastic as a physically developed but mentally retarded teenage beauty queen. You can't have too many.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Analogies are as fantastic as a physically developed but mentally retarded teenage beauty queen. You can't have too many.

Communism is like the :salute: smiley. The more you see it the more you want to kill yourself.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by KoeN

prejudice is human, and therefor can not be considered as a mental illness. there is no human being on this planet with no prejudices towards anything.

Most people exhibit instances of mild obssessive behavior, yet OCD is still considered a mental illness. Although yeah, the motives behind wanting to treat prejudice as a mental illness are slghtly more transparent than most classifications. This sort of nonsense goes back at least as far as Adorno though, who tried to show that people who disagreed with him on certain political points actually had personality disorders.

Also I'm hoping the second half of page 2 will have dissuaded anyone from joining the Communist party . You people are insane.

[dda]

Originally Posted by s|k

What do you guys think? I hate wealth. I have made arguments for capitalism (I like gadgets), but maybe I'm willing to throw that out the window after standing in line waiting to have my baggage checked at LAX. The difference between the rich and the poor just stood out dramatically to me. (The fact that first class ticket holders got to go in front of a one hour long line probably had something to do with it). It's just sick that people pay $3,000 for a Luis Vuitton bag when they can have a similar quality bag for without a brand name for much much less and feed 50 families for like a year through oxfam.

After the LAX experience and watching people in fine designer coats and great skin and beautiful luggage getting to step in front of the disheveled crowd of coach ticket holders I took the city bus from the airport home (with my wife, I'm married!). The people on that bus were such a dramatic different slice of life. The bus stopped outside of a prison and someone who had just gotten out got in with his cardboard box of belongings. He sat next to another guy who after listening to their conversation had been in prison at sometime too. Those guys left and then some other people got on the bus and talked about a person they both knew from a drug rehab program they had been too. The were, in their own words, 'glad to be above ground, and thank the lord Jesus everyday.'

I want to become a librarian and help people. I want to spread literacy, make information freely available, I want to help troubled youth and people in prison make something worthwhile of their lives. I am also thinking of joining the Communist Party right now. Maybe that's a phase, but wanting to help people isn't. I will do that.

Here's a link to the Communist Party of the USA's FAQ: http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/511/#question26 (kind of interesting).

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

[s|k]

You know I just was looking over the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it has this part:

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Which led me to think about some things. One, I suppose the UN is not communist, and whether or not owning property is against communist principles. I don't really have a problem with ownership as long as there is equitable access to resources.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Well in that case, the same applies to those supporting such a system. Terms like 'classless society' arent inherantly meaningful - the onus is on the users of these phrases to describe what they mean, and part of this will necessarily involve a description of what such a thing looks like. We could create a classless society tomorrow sipmly by removing the word 'class' from all English dictionaries. But this presumeably isnt what communists have in mind. Which leads to the question, what precisely do they have in mind?

I missed this the first time round. Basically the following summarises things reasonably well :

Originally Posted by Karl Marx

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

It also covers the 'class' issue. When Marxists refer to class they are not necessarily referring to things like income, or breeding but a relationship (a fluid, dynamic thing, not a simplistic categorisation) between individuals and individuals and the means of production (property). An aristocrat, factory owner or wage earner could all (theoretically) earn the same amount in the same month or year, but this would not mean they were in the same class.

Well, what precisely does the term 'non-classless society' mean? If we have a communist society with a fairly unequal distribution of wealth and 'government' by the elected representatives of localised groups of works , then what are the non-semantic differences between this and a decentralised liberal utopia?

Communism would have the abolition of private property. However, I would not say that communism would have unequal distribution of wealth - in fact, I do not think that 'wealth' would exist in the same sense we know now. Notions of wealth have changed in the past and there is no reason to believe they will not continue to change.