|
| Thread: communism, beyond theory |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 22, 2009 12:08 AM |
|
|
Death, it would be quite a stretch to say that I am in power, but I don't want that either. And don't tell me I'm brainwashed - I'm quite critical of those in power when they're wrong.
Quote:
Funny, isn't what friends are already doing everyday?
Except unlike socialism, it isn't by force. Nor is much distribution of wealth involved.
Quote:
Now how exactly am I supposed to reply to this in any reasonable manner?
"That's a good point, Mvass. I hadn't really considered my own country's past. I guess I was wrong." 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 12:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
edit: NO QUOTING!
Just quoting this since people seem to forget about it.
Real post incoming.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 12:22 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 00:25, 22 Jul 2009.
|
@Death
There are no beggars in a good socialist system, most certainly.
Like there are none in a good capitalist system.
Or a good feudal system.
Or a good fascist system.
You'll never have a system whose theory contains beggars. The idea is to make a system which, when it's implemented in reality, doesn't contain them. And that hasn't been reached yet.
About your "the people in power don't want us to behave like ants" idea...
No, the thing is that we can't bloody do that. The people in power DO want us to behave like ants, and always did. You will not find, in the entire world, a leader which wouldn't like his people to act like ants with him being the Queen. But that couldn't work out, and people never liked that - at all - so those on top tried to figure out a way to keep themselves in power and yet not make us act like ants.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 12:26 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 00:28, 22 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
Death, it would be quite a stretch to say that I am in power, but I don't want that either. And don't tell me I'm brainwashed - I'm quite critical of those in power when they're wrong.
That's not what I meant. Of course there would be capitalist supporters even without "those in power". However, the reason you don't see much socialists on TV is because "those in power", not you or me, happen to rarely be socialists without turning it into profit for themselves (who would share for nothing when you're in power?).
I didn't say that only those in power support capitalism. I said that only those in power are "popular", and those in power usually only support capitalism. The others don't matter as far as media is concerned. So you, even though support capitalism, don't really matter. neither do I.
Quote:
Except unlike socialism, it isn't by force. Nor is much distribution of wealth involved.
Sometimes it is, depends on friends. There's a saying "friends usually lend money without expecting it back"
Some stuff has to be by force if you want to have any kind of order in society, or else we would be in total anarchy. You do know my point is that "opportunities" must be equal in the same way as "rights", so this discussion isn't new.
Quote:
"That's a good point, Mvass. I hadn't really considered my own country's past. I guess I was wrong."
lol of course I already took it in account, and it is exactly because of this that you, a non-Eastern bloc citizen, do not understand it.
The system wasn't socialistic, in the sense of equality that I perceive. It was tyranny. Actually, "those in power" (usually politicians) had a lot to gain by it, as would any tyranny lead to obviously. This is the complete opposite of what the socialism I'm advocating (or what Marx was advocating, a classless society), where those in power would actually share their gains with the population.
How can it be classless when the leaders themselves abused that for their own gains, instead of the ideology's gains, or the people's gains, or something else's gains than themselves?
Mind you there still has to be someone in power to keep order, but not for profit for himself, he has to care. Of course that's hard in real life, which is why a regulation must be applied on the government, unless I would happen to be the dictator, in which case no regulation for me is needed (since I do not care for my selfish self)
@bak: if there's no quoting allowed, I'm out of this thread.
as for beggars, I can't see how anyone can be a beggar in a system in which wealth is distributed equally. Unless of course, EVERYONE is a beggar. (in which case, wealth is indeed distributed equally, but everyone is a beggar)
Fortunately I do not know any beggar who wants to remain a beggar. In capitalism though, he may not have the opportunities to succeed, given his situation. The biggest difference.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 01:14 AM |
|
|
Death:
You don't see many socialists on TV? You don't see many capitalists on TV either. In fact, you will learn nothing useful by watching mainstream news - OCTOMOM! MICHAEL JACKSON! OBAMA'S JEANS! But the arts, which could be considered a form of media, are very much dominated by left-wingers.
As for what those in power support, they don't support capitalism any more than they support socialism. They support whatever system gives them the most power, which usually results in some kind of crony part-fascist, part-socialist, part-capitalist system, where the government taxes to hand out favours to pressure groups, such as farmers, trade unions, and some corporations.
Yes, sometimes friends lend money, but it's not an everyday occurrence. For socialism, it would have to be a regular thing.
Quote:
Some stuff has to be by force if you want to have any kind of order in society, or else we would be in total anarchy.
If there is an organisation that is given power to defend people from each other, that's one thing. But when it attacks people who have done nothing wrong, that's quite another.
And I am a citizen of an Eastern Bloc country - Russia. I've heard plenty about how horrible it was back then.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 01:26 AM |
|
|
@Death
Alas, most people did seem like beggars in most communist countries.
Socialism is something else. After some thinking, I somehow got to the conclusion that it's best to seek the golden middle between socialism and capitalism, for now.
But this thread is concerned with communism primarily.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 01:31 AM |
|
|
No, communism is a form of socialism. Socialism is not a golden middle - I think the term you're looking for is "Third Way".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 01:38 AM |
|
|
I know that socialism isn't a golden middle. A middle between socialism and capitalism is the golden middle. That's what I said.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 01:56 AM |
|
|
Communism started as a branch of socialism, and it went far away from that and broke out of the trees branches and thus become a new tree.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 02:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I know that socialism isn't a golden middle. A middle between socialism and capitalism is the golden middle. That's what I said.
I misread your post. Sorry. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 02:58 AM |
|
|
No problem. ^^ The OSM thrives on people misreading people's posts.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 08:47 AM |
|
|
When looking at the idea of communism you have to see the time that bore the idea. Like feudalism. It wouldn't work today, obviously, but it did work for a time.
When communism as an idea was developed, the world looked very different than now. First there wer not many "industrialized" countries; Russia was still basically a feudalistic state. France and England had colonies all over the world, the US were still "colonizing" their west. Remember the "Wild West"? You don't see much industry there, do you?
So the problem THEN was this: until then (or until a couple of decades) most people had been working either in the rural districts or as artisans. Industrialization had changed that, and basically in Western Europe. The poor landworkers left the land and went into the cities to find a better lot there, but it just wasn't there. The situation for most of them was dire.
In practise, in early capitalism people were worse off than slaves - slaves are property, and usually their owners take care of their property. No one took care of the workers. It was really very bad. While it is a simplification, it is still right to say, that in the middle of the 19th century the whole world was exploited by very few people. The US still had the slaves, but there of coursea lot of new land came into play (and let's not talk about how, that's not relevant for this issue).
Of course both Marx and Engels were members of the bourgeoisie, but it's obvious that the ideas for revolution can't come from the revolutioners. Both of them lived for a long time in London, the biggest city of the world, then, and ample proof for every misery in the worls. Anyway THEN communism would have most certainly been an option. The Manifest was written shortly before 1850. There had been something in Germany that was called a revolution, but you know Germany, so it was more like civil disobedience resulting in a reformation of the POLITICAL systeme.
It was an unstable time, and since capitalism was young and there wasn't much in terms of factories for consumer goods chances are that communist revolutions in England, France and Germany (which might well have sprung over to the smaller countries around them) would have been not only successful, but might even have worked and ended with something that would in practise have been a "cooperative capitalism". Capitalists and land owners would have been dispossessed, cards would have been dealt anew, and the world would probably look a lot different than today, if for better or for worse, who knows.
But that isn't the question here in this thread. In my opinion there was a time and a place to test communism in practise and this time would have been, a couple of years give and take 1850-1880 at the most, in Western Europe, specifically England, France and Germany. Ok, let's not forget Italy and Austria. I suppose that a war might have been possible in case of a success, to free the comrades in Russia.
Anyway, that was the time, that was the place. That time and place isn't existing anymore as is the feudalistic society of the Middle Ages or the slave economy long gone. THEN, an attitude like, hey, let the others work while I sit on my behind and cash in, would have been unthinkable - people were used to work HARD, up to 16 hours, 6 days, in the early 19. century, and if there had been any slackers, they probably would simply have been forced to work, beaten by the comrades, in short, they would have been shown that communism wasn't for slackers. Likewise, a lot of people owned virtually NOTHING.
Russia was way behind in development, so their Novemeber revolution for Russia and Russia alone was still within the time frame. Russia, however, is as bad as it gets as a country to pull through a revolution since it's simply too big. While the time was right in Russia, it just wasn't the right place, but we don't need to discuss that either.
The idea of communism, the way Marx and Engels developed it, is not 1:1 transferable into other times. It might have worked 150 years ago. Now we have to find something new.
As a small PS here. About human nature and all that - that doesn't count. Everything may work - at least for a time, if it's established the right way. If gravity is beaten and the wheels of society are set in motion, once they are turning, things develop a certain dynamic of its own, a bit like what Death means. There are always crossroads of history when humanity might have taken a different direction, and no one knows how things would have developed.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 22, 2009 09:34 AM |
|
|
People are not perfect, so it follows that anything they can concieve of or make will never be perfect. Should they themselves become perfect, then whatever they make should in theory be perfect.
This goes for government as well as anything else. Everything can look good on paper. Unfortunately power corrupts, so as one group (or another) rises to power (however they do it) they tend to become corrupted or complacent (which imo is WORSE then corrupted). The more power the individuals have, the more corrupt they can become. So every system will fail eventually, because it requires HUMANS. Even if it became machines..machines are made by man..and can be corrupted by other men (hacking, etc). Sorry getting sidetracked again...
Even if by some providence of fate, the stars all aligned, all the conditions were perfect and the people elected were the best of all history..eventually people die and are replaced. So even a near perfect system eventually becomes less and less perfect. The best system with the best rulers only lasts as long as those rulers live.
So eventually every system needs to be shook up, cleaned, and even in some cases taken down entirely.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Society99
Adventuring Hero
I am too much of a spammer!
|
|
posted July 23, 2009 02:36 AM |
|
|
No, it will not work, since, as a lot of others have already posted, this goes against the very nature of humans. Communism is a freakin' eutopia, really, but human nature corrupts it. When we've evolved and become less selfish and more keen of life, it might 
|
| |
|
|
