I mostly like socialism, however socialism often turns into social reform by governments and I am with Isaiah Berlin on this; 'But to manipulate men, to propel them towards goals which you — the social reformer — see, but they may not, is to deny their human essence, to treat them as objects without wills of their own, and therefore to degrade them.'
Like ArgentWing said, it goes against the American value of hard work = good job/house/life. While capitalism doesn't promise those things, there is no way that equation could work in a communist society. Communism, to put it simply, is all property = the government's property. Don't get me wrong. I don't think all communists are bad people, I just see the system itself as totally unrealistic. I don't see how the government could control and own everything without corruption. Greed is human nature, and when you have a group of people who have power over everything, someone in that group will want to abuse that power. I'd like to point out that communism and socialism, contrary to popular belief, are not synonyms. (although I'm sure someone already did point this out) Socialism is a form of government in which the system provides you with free food/healthcare/etc from taxes. The United States, while capitalist, is a bit socialistic as well. For example, I just recently got Medicaid, which helps me pay for my doctor visits and eye care. When I go buy a new pair of glasses with Medicaid, I'm not using my own money, I'm using tax money. Anyone who uses Welfare/free healthcare/public education/any other free thing from the government, or pays taxes, whether they like it or not, is a part of socialism. Communism is, basically, an extreme form of socialism in which everything belongs to the govenment. Everyone remains in the same class since all of their money/land/belongings are owned by the government. Like socialism, the government can give you free food/healthcare/, but none of those things actually belong to you, and they can be taken away at anytime. I believe a moderate amount of socialism can be a very good thing. Communism, in my opinion, is unhealthy. While I do want a helping hand every now and then, I still want to be able to earn my own money and legally own my belongings. So, basically, I think communism is a bad thing, but not all communists are evil totalitarians who want to kill everyone. P.S. For the sake of ignorance and simplicity, I'm only referring to pure communism. I don't know enough about anarcho-communism to make a judgement on it.
The context in which commnism came about, was the context it would have been most sucessful. However the Communist Manifesto was published AFTER some strides in worker safety and rights had been made and thus didn't attract the following that Marx had hoped for. It was written during the industrial revolution where people were pouring in from the countryside to cities to find jobs and wages. However when you found a job you faced deadly conditions and 18 hour days all week just to make your boss money and if you didn't do it, there was always another bumpkin to replace you. It was written to appeal to a mass of people who were being abused by a few for the sake of money. It certainly appealed to the Russians. It appeals to an abused mass being held in control by a powerful few. Communism works initially as far as preventing the monopolization of the assets of the former opressors eg. money, but long term there isn't an incentive to work harder if the result is the same. Indoctrination can only do so much in regards to motivation, after awhile people want to work for their own ends. Communism has been bad thus far because there is failure to take into account human greed and lust for power. Any american who says that they are a communist either doesn't fully understand it and the repercussions, or is very naive.
LOL, coming from someone who complains of being bullied after you act like a child. Thanks for the advice though, mother. Then don't believe what you do. It's really that simple. Clearly, if you value "logic," then you wouldn't possess your current political beliefs. Go to college and take a political theory course or two. Pretty certain your perspective will change significantly. And that's a good thing. It's not their obligation to do it. Keep that in mind. You're living in a bubble, though. Many wealthy individuals donate to some really great things that helps people who really need it rather than helping themselves, despite what some uninformed liberals in this country would want you to believe. The person I work for right now is on the wealthy side, and he's donated a lot of money for cancer research and other things. Same old, same old talking points. But you're OK with communism, that's pretty hilarious, actually. You think wrong. Every system is unethical in some way. That's the way it is. Get a grip on reality.
There are college-educated proponents of the ideas that I'm perpetuating, so I don't believe that a higher education will make me less inclined to believe what I do. You're also criticizing my education, as opposed to the content of my ideas. You haven't elucidated precisely why workplace democracy is a bad thing. You haven't logically demonstrated as much. Other than saying so, over and over and over and over. It is their obligation to do it, because they are in the position to do something about it. It's the trolley problem writ large, only the one person that gets run over is actually just minuscule comforts, and the five people saved are millions. Despite your anecdotal evidence, the vast majority of the excess wealth is not channeled into philanthropic causes. In fact,the wealthy are less charitable proportionally than other groups despite having more to spare, and most of those donations don't go into high-impact, life-saving charity. Being smarmy doesn't make your point for you, I'm afraid. The current system can be significantly less unethical, nonetheless.
Mike all you're doing is dismissing her points by saying it is a bad idea but you arent really explaining why you feel that beyond "it is a bad idea dont think that", it would make more constructive reasoning if you could elaborate why.
And? There are college educated people who are just nuts politically. You can definitely go to college and still believe the whack political ideas you do. But taking a political theory course and actually learning the theory behind political beliefs would (theoretically, hopefully) help someone such as yourself realize how illogical communism really is. You seem to be someone who struggles with handling the structure of existence/reality, and therefore try to come up with these crazy ideas that would make life all better. No, it is not. Period. Should they help the less fortunate? Sure. Obligated? Not at all. the wealthy are less charitable proportionally than other groups despite having more to spare, and most of those donations don't go into high-impact, life-saving charity. For someone who was strongly against strawman arguments a few posts ago, it looks like you've collected some straw yourself and have started to build your own strawman. I never said that the "vast majority" of excess wealth goes toward philanthropic causes. I simply said that a lot of wealthy people do donate money to good causes. Selective reading will make you look rather foolish every time. Nice try, though. Selective reading and believing things far from reality doesn't make your "point" logical, I'm afraid. You're absolutely right; if only we had that communist system in place. :rolle: ---------- Post added 27th Jul 2014 at 03:19 PM ---------- It isn't possible to shift from our current system to communism. At all. I'm not even about to go into a 10 paragraph post on how crazy of a thought that really is and, frankly, it's not worth my time. I've explained numerous times on this site - you can read previous posts if you're really interested in my reasoning. ---------- Post added 27th Jul 2014 at 03:22 PM ---------- Nah, let's just push those aside and pretend they aren't legitimate flaws.
Mm, I think that might be partly my fault because I only linked out essays on my blog for the true meat of my position. I'll try to distill them into a single argument: Definitions: Power is the capacity to compel others to perform actions that they would not have otherwise chosen. Wealth is the sum of all resources that one has effectively exclusive control over. The democratic process is observed when a majority or greater gives consent to a decision or decision-maker. Workplace democracy entails employees cooperatively owning and operating businesses, often through the election of the management. [Competition would still exist with an elected management, thus producers will still be incentivized to make profits and provide people with good products and services.] Propositions: Wealth determines power. Most people are benefited if power is determined by the democratic process, more often than not. Therefore, most people are benefited if wealth is determined by the democratic process more often than not, as it would be with the institution of workplace democracy. Revolutionary industrial unions would probably the best vehicle for organizing efforts in favor of workplace democracy, but under no circumstance can it be achieved through a coup d'etat led by militant political radicals against pre-existing national government. The threshold from capitalism to workplace democracy can be feasibly passed through a general strike and mass protest, among other means of nonviolent resistance coordinated against employers. If my reasoning is so flawed, I'd like to know where I went wrong in any of the above definitions or propositions. ---------- Post added 27th Jul 2014 at 03:43 PM ---------- So it's ultimately irrelevant, then. Recognizing these glaring problems is somehow comforting? And what's wrong with my epistemology? I suppose we have different ethical philosophies, then. You said 'Many wealthy individuals donate to some really great things that helps people who really need it rather than helping themselves, despite what some uninformed liberals in this country would want you to believe.' I debunked that pretty effectively in my reply. Indeed.
Robots can be closer to perfection than humans. That is why A.I.s can make communism work. I also never stated that humans could communism correctly.
While I see the general outline of what you're saying, I think an A.I. is only as good as its programmer, and the material circumstances which predicate its role as a decision-maker. To replace say, the Communist Party of China, with a board of A.I.s who would selflessly distribute goods, you'd have to first deal with the CPC's dominance in society... which would necessitate human effort to change the conditions of society in favor of democracy. Which, at that point, A.I. leadership and management would be superfluous.
Hey just wanna say something here(please note that im not taking sides and this can be applied to both sides of the argument but im responding to you specifically because this seems like a little red flag so please don't take this as im solely going after you) anyway to my point just because some disagrees or is acting "child like" to you does not mean you can bully or be rude to them remember this is a support site. Its best to keep your debates civil and when you disagree with someone and think that something they are saying is wrong provide evidence or at least a have an actual debate instead of insulting their intelligence or just flat out saying they are flat out wrong.
Pure communism is impossible. Communism starts with an idea, a utopia. It then seeks to change and force humans to conform to that idea. It's inherently oppressive, because it does not take into account human behaviour and builds upon the motives and behaviour of people, but takes an idea and forces humanity to conform to it. The way to get people to conform to communism is therefore always force or other ways to have power over people. People wish to own things, it things do not feel owned, they care less. People wish to be rewarded, if there is no reward for working, they will have less motivation to work. People do not want to be exactly equal to everyone, but have some freedom and preferably be better than other people. So pure communism can't work. Pure equality is impossible when force or power is needed, because some people then need the power to use force against others and then there is no more equality. The same applies to pure capitalism in another way. If everyone was born equal, humanity was incorruptible, honest, fair and logical, pure capitalism might work, but that's not the case.
Agreed. While I may or may not agree with the various political viewpoints being expressed, the presumed point of a debate or discussion is to convince someone else of the correctness of your position vs their own and that they should change their position to conform with yours. Or at least to educate and inform. In stark contrast, you seem to be much more concerned with throwing around insults and ad hominem attacks than trying to convince anyone of anything. Unless its that you've mastered the declarative sentence. Woop-di-doo. Todd
I'll agree with you in that Americans generally call politicians socialist or communist over positions that are neither, which blows the words way out of context. I do, however, have a vicious hatred of Communism. It requires either anarchy or a state that wields near-total power, both of which are very bad things. Not to mention that every such movement that gains any power ends up killing a lot of people while shifting rather far from the original Communist ideal. Socialism I see as a spectrum, not an ideology in and of itself, and it is a neutral entity. It can be used well, or it can be used poorly. ---------- Post added 27th Jul 2014 at 08:52 PM ---------- Incorrect. Communism was originally thought up by Marx and Engels, with Lenin not adopting it until after Marx was dead. ---------- Post added 27th Jul 2014 at 09:06 PM ---------- Blatantly false, I am quite sure.
Gosh, I could prolong this discussion forever since I am a leftist... What I want to say is that the original, text book communism has never existed. Some argue that communism can only function very well in small, concentrated societies. However, if someone comes to me and claims that capitalism is in any way the solution, I'm going to laugh in their face. If you want more information on these topics I suggest you checkout Revleft.com, I'm a member there too.
Oh, you mean the site so hung up on its own ideological purity that anyone who deviates from their narrow definition of what a proper leftist believes gets restricted to the opposition forum, and where the drama is so thick you can cut it with a knife?
This. I have an account there, and a lot of the people on that forum are unapologetic in their rudeness and disdain for others. I mean, they're generally well-informed about whatever leftist political theory and history they happen to be proponents of, often linking out to articles and books pertaining to the topic, but they can be unmitigated jerks about it. Like, "Fuck that liberal bullshit, you should read Bordiga's How to Communist Correctly, Bro [1926]."
