"True communism"

Discussion in 'Politics' started by BenTheMan, Nov 29, 2010.

  1. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    In my "Bitches Love Communism" thread, before it was (regrettably, but understandably) cesspooled, I saw the following remark:


    I have two questions:

    1.) What is "true communism"? Who gets to define "fair"?

    2.) Of which theoretical system of human interaction can the following not be said:

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    In fact, I would have said the following:

    Humans are TOO evolved to make it work.

    Lots of animals live together in perfect "truly communist" communities, I'm sure: of each according to his ability, and shit, right? Some monkeys go out and catch food, and some monkeys stay home and raise the kids, and none of the monkeys wants for food or shelter at the end of the day.

    It's that goddamned thing called ambition....
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Wow. I'm glad I don't assess my own intelligence by what people say about me on the internet.

    Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

    I fail to see how community = communism.

    Capitalism works just fine for me thank you very much

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I vote Republican, my car gets 15 miles to the gallon, and GOD I love things like French wine, Cuban cigars (which I can now buy, thank you Canada!), and thick steaks. I would venture a guess that none of these things would be available to me if we lived in a communist society---at least the "voting for a different party than the one that's in power" thing.

    Even Lenin acknowledged that the Socialists couldn't start anything for themselves---they needed capitalism first to establish industry, and the idea was that socialists would take it over for themselves. Look it up:

    And, for the score keepers, sweet little birch never addressed any of the points from the OP, or his original comment.

    I get it kid---you're what, 15? You just read a pamphlet passed out by some dude with red eyes and dreadlocks who smelled like patchouli. Good for you!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Anyway, maybe we should clear some things up:

    What do you mean by "communism"? I have trouble distinguishing "communism" from "socialism", except that socialism seems to work when it is mixed with a healthy dose of capitalism and democracy (eg, Scandinavia), and communism doesn't seem to work at all (eg, Cuba). In my mind, a socialist country (NB: NOT a socialist democracy) and a communist country would be indistinguishable.
     
  8. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    listen, old fart. you're the one who is narrow-minded. a pure capitalist system does not work nor a pure communist system nor a pure socialist system.

    a system that incorporates elements of all three in the right proportions would be a better system.

    ambition= greed is also seen among animals. that's why some might grab more of the kill than others. working for the greater good is not greed just as people who are inventors or those like galileo, copernicus, and einstein did not do what they did out of greed but expressing what they were interested in but it still benefited society. even in a true communist state, they could have thrived. btw, it was religion they had to butt up against more than anything else. so much for you GOD. you have a low opinion of people and think they all are greedy.

    you also didn't address my points either. you skimmed over how capitalism has it's problems. (i'm sure you will use the tired, "it's better than the alternative"). please spare us, we've heard it all before.

    if you want to think that it always has to be either or, then things will never become better or change.

    the founding fathers had a vision and came up with what they thought would be best. it's like those religionists who can't see the reason for change and hold onto an ancient book for living exactly.

    this doesn't mean that it can't be done again and it doesn't mean that things can't be improved or even a new or better system can't be implemented as we learn what works and what doesn't.

    i think it will change as people learn but it will take time.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2010
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Communism is a stateless and classless society with no individual ownership. Lennism is a variation of communism which advocates a state, state ownership and a dictatorship as an intermediate state to true communism (stateless, classes) society.

    Socialsim is a theory of public ownership and cooperative management of production and distribution.

    As for other animal examples:

    communism: ants, bees

    capitalism: loins, dogs, etc.

    In the end, who cares about this stuff? Marx speculated that communism would occur when production became uber efficient causing production costs to be zero. In a state where everyone can have anything they want, where is the need for statehood?

    Should we ever get to a state where production costs were zero or near zero, I can see a practical use for communism. But that day is not happening any time soon. Lennism as practiced by Mao (Maoism), Lennin, Stalin (Stalinism), et al has been thoroughly discredited and no one is advocating same. Even China, Vietnam have moved to a capitalist system, and Cuba desires to do so.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2010
  10. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    lol. there has never been a true communist state.


    this is just a form of democracy.
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910

    How can you make such a blanket statement? Do you know how every human society was structured? If you do, please tell us how. I am not certian that very small societies have not been communist. How about certian American Indian societies, were they communistic? I am not an expert on American Indian societies.

    Certianly I can think of no modern societies that were communistic?
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2010
  12. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    every society has had a hierarchy or leader even if they worked together.

    a true classless society does not exist. it also means what one means by class, if it's based on entitlement such as nepotism or if it's based on qualification.

    america is also not totally capitalist either. it never was but some elements or subsects are such as what the corporations do for the bottom line.
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    How about some small hippie micro societies? I don't know the answer. But broad generalizations tend to be vulnerable to the exception.
     
  14. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    that's just a democracy. capitalism is based on who can get the most, not necessarily who gives the most. the usual rhetoric is that communism is.

    i guess what people consider class has to do with differences in access to resources. hippie societies do tend to contribute and distribute in an egalitarian manner. the logic behind the difference between a farmer and a rocket scientist is that the rocket scientist should not get more resources for individual consumption because everyone partakes or benefits from what everyone is doing. even a rocket scientist needs to eat and in order to focus on it's interests, someone else must do something else. if it is given more, then that would be up to the entire group if they think it benefits or if those additional resources are required.

    i'm not saying communism would work but when you look at capitalism, it is based on a system where it's very similar in action except it uses the basis of individual gain even though they live in communities where the setup is for everyone to potentially profit "against" others. the difference with capitalism is since it's based on commerce, those who initially make the most would still continue to make the rules. it sets up a class division that at outset looks legitimate but can be become as oppressive or exploitive. pure capitalism would still end up as a dictatorship. the issue with capitalism is it overlooks that it requires others for the gain or does not see their contribution as but sources of gain. for instance, just because one owns, they can get the lion's share of profits even if it requires the contribution of others or even more contribution by others. in the end this will be shaken up again usually by revolt as the elites will not outnumber the masses. then it ends up back to more communist principles once more. no man is an island, so to speak. the point being they don't skip the bs as they will end up back where they started. until they learn this lesson, they will repeat it.

    that's why a blend of socialism, communism (though they are often interchanged), and capitalism (some individual ownership) would offset one extreme or another which would cause demise.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2010
  15. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801

    I wonder how some people think they are smart if they think they are capable of planning a better social system than
    the one made by nature through natural selection for thousands of years?
    Or they just say what they think is best for themselves and not care about others?
     
  16. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    the whole process of learning and finding solutions is natural.

    what do you expect people to do, not think or take action?
     
  17. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801
    Communism could not be made at the state level anywhere.
    Only some utopian communities have attempted to achieve but they failed.View Kibbutz .
    Socialism came to power by force and not by free election.
    The first thing they did was cancellation of free elections.
     
  18. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910


    Given that statehood is anathema to communism, you are right.
    OK. But the kibbutz was socialistic, not communistic.
    So who was the dictator who forced socialism in Israel (e.g. the kibbutz)? Social security is generally viewed as a socialistic program, who was the dicator who brought forth the program?

    You are over the edge. This last statement is utter nonsense.
     
  19. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Hi birch----

    It seems that you have, again, failed to answer the question in the OP. You specifically said:

    and I asked for clarification. I haven't raised any points that need to be defended.

    In spite of your ad hominem style of debating, it's not clear that you actually intend to define "true communism" or have any discussion at all regarding the topic.

    And the shift key is your friend---one would think that in an
    that one would not have to worry about reading things that look like twitter updates.
     
  20. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    *yawn*, It's oh so shocking that conservative, God-fearing (oops, God-complex) Republicans would condemn "evil" Communism.

    Anyways, I don't think any political or economic system is perfect but it probably has some good points that could be very useful if applied in the right situation or in combination with others.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2010
  21. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Until perfect humans are found there's never going to be a perfect form of government but only a government that the people are willing to tolerate for awhile.
     
  22. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Anyway, one would think that someone with such strong opinions---as our well-informed friend birch here---would like to defend them. The point I was trying to make is that words like "fair" don't really hold any meaning unless you define them. Fair for who? "Of each according to his ability, to each according to his need" doesn't necessarily sound like the most fair system to people who have "ability", nor does it offer any chance for the individual to be anything more than a cog in a wheel.

    Joe's point, that the right answer lies somewhere in between, is (of course) correct. Some people prefer more socialism (i.e., Scandinavia) and some people prefer less. What we do know is that the extremes don't seem to work very well in practice, no matter how well things work in theory.

    I do find it humorous, though, that people from every side throw up the same "it's never been tried" argument: I've heard it many times here about communism (in spite of the fact that no one ever really defines what they mean by the term), and in other places about capitalism (" 'True Capitalism' has never been tried"!). Of course these things fail, but they don't fail because people aren't "evolved enough"---a pretty silly argument---they fail because people can think for themselves.

    Anyway, it seems that birch is only interested in talking to himself, and I think my point is proved.
     
  23. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801

    Many people are confused between socialism and social security.
    They did not even make the difference between the system organization of the State and the system organization of a Kibbutz.
    They do not bother to document or intentionally misinforms.
    There is no connection between socialism and social protection.
    In short: "Social Security" is the way government spends money and "Socialism" is how to get government money.
    If you want a higher social protection do not have anything else to do than vote in parliament by your representatives, laws to ensure greater social protection.
    Socialism is against private property.
     

Share This Page