What do you think about Communism?

[Supersonic]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

The key here is the concept of "reward". It's the fruit of competence--competence is intrinsically tied to capitalism. In a communist society, rewards wouldn't matter! Like I said before, you need to stop thinking in capitalist terms. Business, self-interest, competence, rewards, those are all capitalist concepts that wouldn't have place in an ideal, altruistic society.

I'll repeat: Communism wouldn't work right now, because people don't have the right mindset for it right now. Maybe some day humanity will have the right mindset for it. I'm sure it will happen, but it might just be wishful thinking.

You're suggesting that one day humans will be so stepped in lunacy that they would surrender the fruits of their labor merely to live in the vague promise of a utopia? As always, communism appeals to those who have nothing to show for their labor, and thus would rather have someone else bear the burden of their utopia.

[WanderingKnight]

You're suggesting that one day humans will be so stepped in lunacy that they would surrender the fruits of their labor merely to live in the vague promise of a utopia?

I don't know how much you know about capitalism, but surrender the fruits of labor is exactly what the worker in a capitalist society does. You don't control your work, you surrender your work in exchange for money. Marx defines this as the alienation of the worker from his product in his Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844.

In any rate, if I can interpret what you're saying (overcoming that little thing there with the surrendering of the work), you're calling self-disinterested people "lunatics". If you would be so kind as to go and read my posts, I'm talking about a society where a capitalist way of understanding the world and acting accordingly (e.g., where people are considered lunatics for being self-disinterested) doesn't exist. What is so hard to understand? Is it too hard to open your mind a little bit, to get out from the cage of western typical behavior? Is it so hard to imagine a different world, where different values from the ones we are used to are more important?

I repeat: This can't happen now! I'd hate to live in a communist society. I'm not ready for it. Most people, if not all, aren't. Which doesn't necessarily mean they never will!

[Oneironaut]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

You seem to have an extremely skewed view of how both communism and socialism work. Neither systems require that all the people act in lockstep.

Socialism is the act of redistributing wealth to the underclass. To put that in non-capitalistic terms, socialism uses laboring society to feed, clothe, shelter, and provide health care for the poor. In the most accurate terms, a socialist government uses slave labor (that is, they take your labor) to construct society in a utopian image.

Not a good idea.

Socialism relies on the assumption that everyone worth considering is willing to work for the "common good". So let's say I don't. Let's say I want to live a selfish existence, keeping what I earn, passing on to others as I like, and managing my own affairs. Does the government have the right to say I can't?

In Socialist systems, the answer is yes. Socialist systems kick in the doors and throw you in prison until you're willing to buy into their way of thinking. You do not have an option but to fund the welfare state. You do not own your life; the "common good" does. It is illegal not to buy in. If you disagree, your liberty no longer exists.

And that is what I mean by "lockstep".

[WanderingKnight]

To put that in non-capitalistic terms, socialism uses others' labor to feed, clothe, shelter, and provide health care for people who can't labor due to the injustices of the capitalist system.

There, fixed that for ya.

[Oneironaut]

A true capitalist system is as just as its people. And that, I think, is freedom.

[WanderingKnight]

A true capitalist system is as just as its people. And that, I think, is freedom.

Correction: People and their way of acting are a by-product of the capitalist system (and of any social environment they are immersed in).

[Oneironaut]

Regardless, the invalidness of a way of thinking does not warrant that holders must be forced to adopt another.

Let's put this in perspective. I was born into the middle class, a position that comes with a great deal of privilege. As I child I had excellent education, food, and healthcare. Now, in college, a good half of my student expenses are covered by my parents. I am spoiled rotten by the standards of ninety-five percent of the world.

For all that, why should my parents, or I, or my children, be forced to pay for idealism? We do not ask, as many upper classes have in history, for protection. If we crash down into another class, we'll rot in a dumpster with as much dignity as we can muster. We have no desire to impose on others. In exchange, we say that no one else has any right to impose on us.

How do you, or anyone, have the right to say we must think and do otherwise?

[WanderingKnight]

Regardless, the invalidness of a way of thinking does not warrant that holders must be forced to adopt another.

Let's put this in perspective. I was born into the middle class, a position that comes with a great deal of privilege. As I child I had excellent education, food, and healthcare. Now, in college, a good half of my student expenses are covered by my parents. I am spoiled rotten by the standards of ninety-five percent of the world.

For all that, why should my parents, or I, or my children, be forced to pay for your idealism? I do not ask, as many upper classes have in history, for protection. If I crash down into another class, I'll rot in a dumpster with as much dignity as I can muster. I have no desire to impose on others. In exchange, I say that no one else has any right to impose on me.

How many times have I stated that it doesn't work on the current conditions of society? How many times have I said that no communist revolution would be a positive way of acting? I told you already: I'm not talking about changing things now. I'm talking about the future. I'm talking about progressive change. Standards change, values change, people change, things change. Things improve. In the future, in the far far far away future, people may bring the change out of their own accord. Or the change may just happen, and no one notices it. Or maybe something else happens, I don't know. The thing is, nothing of what you're talking about will be crossing the minds of the people of that time. This might happen in a hundred years, in a thousand years, or even in a million years, but it still is a possibility.

But what is important is to understand that the current system is filled with injustice and that it can change, and that the status quo is not something to be maintained as long as people remain unequal under it. Instead of staying content with our own good, we have, at least, to understand that there are things that are wrong with the system. I'm not asking you to stop working for yourself. I'm not asking you to go and give your stuff to everyone else. I'm just asking you to understand that things aren't right. Even with that slightest of understandings, something has improved. Something is different. And, by building that understanding step by step, things can change. You and I won't be there when it happens, if it happens, but the possibility is there. Don't deny it.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Socialism is the act of redistributing wealth to the underclass. To put that in non-capitalistic terms, socialism uses laboring society to feed, clothe, shelter, and provide health care for the poor. In the most accurate terms, a socialist government uses slave labor (that is, they take your labor) to construct society in a utopian image.

Not a good idea.

Socialism relies on the assumption that everyone worth considering is willing to work for the "common good". So let's say I don't. Let's say I want to live a selfish existence, keeping what I earn, passing on to others as I like, and managing my own affairs. Does the government have the right to say I can't?

In Socialist systems, the answer is yes. Socialist systems kick in the doors and throw you in prison until you're willing to buy into their way of thinking. You do not have an option but to fund the welfare state. You do not own your life; the "common good" does. It is illegal not to buy in. If you disagree, your liberty no longer exists.

And that is what I mean by "lockstep".

Where the heck did you get that idea from? I'd like to say that you're wrong, but that doesn't even come close to how far off you really are. I can only imagine that this is some sort of strawman of socialism that you heard from somewhere, and for whatever strange reason, you took it as the truth .

As an economic system, all that socialism means is that some duties would be better if they were performed by the government. How is that anything like what you said above?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Let's put this in perspective. I was born into the middle class, a position that comes with a great deal of privilege. As I child I had excellent education, food, and healthcare. Now, in college, a good half of my student expenses are covered by my parents. I am spoiled rotten by the standards of ninety-five percent of the world.

For all that, why should my parents, or I, or my children, be forced to pay for idealism? We do not ask, as many upper classes have in history, for protection. If we crash down into another class, we'll rot in a dumpster with as much dignity as we can muster. We have no desire to impose on others. In exchange, we say that no one else has any right to impose on us.

How do you, or anyone, have the right to say we must think and do otherwise?

This is the "As long as I'm doing well, who cares whether anyone else is suffering?" argument. It shouldn't take an astute moral philosopher to see what's wrong with it.

[Supersonic]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

As an economic system, all that socialism means is that some duties would be better if they were performed by the government. How is that anything like what you said above?

The government granting itself a monopoly is NOT (!!!) the same as the government performing additional duties. One infringes on personal freedoms, the other is merely a waste of tax money.

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

I don't know how much you know about capitalism, but surrender the fruits of labor is exactly what the worker in a capitalist society does. You don't control your work, you surrender your work in exchange for money. Marx defines this as the alienation of the worker from his product in his Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844.

Have I not chosen to exchange my work for money? How is that not having control of my work? Money then, rather than the good produced, is the fruit of my labor. I have chosen to labor under these circumstances.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Supersonic

The government granting itself a monopoly is NOT (!!!) the same as the government performing additional duties.

What the heck is wrong with the government performing certain duties?

[WanderingKnight]

Have I not chosen to exchange my work for money? How is that not having control of my work?

Marx's point was, that in order for a low-class worker to survive, his only choice was to surrender his work for money, or die of starvation by not working. The very fruit of his labor is lost, because the worker doesn't own the means of production (the employer owns them). A farmer works in a land that is not his own, but of a more powerful land owner. A worker labors at a factory that is not his own, producing things under directions other than his own, and forcibly selling that work in order to survive. Though the "freedom" of doing something exists on paper, no one is given the same opportunities in life.

The whole point of communism is for the workers themselves to own the means of productions

[Aoie_Emesai]

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

A true capitalist system is as just as its people. And that, I think, is freedom.

A decent type of government is what the people want. If a society is already accustomed to a specific one, then changing it won't help them too much. If they are unwilling to accept a new one, then changing it will just damage their economy. Just like when the USSR crashed and Russia became a country. It was rough, but cause they were forced to change, they grew steadily to accept/force accept the Democracy ish type.

[Supersonic]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

The whole point of communism is for the workers themselves to own the means of productions

Workers can already own the means of production in a capitalist society. It's why the banking industry exists.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Aoie_Emesai

A decent type of government is what the people want. If a society is already accustomed to a specific one, then changing it won't help them too much. If they are unwilling to accept a new one, then changing it will just damage their economy. Just like when the USSR crashed and Russia became a country. It was rough, but cause they were forced to change, they grew steadily to accept/force accept the Democracy ish type.

While your point is not too bad, your specific example is quite incorrect. The reason why Russia went into an economic tailspin isn't because they didn't accept capitalism/democracy. It's because Yeltsin basically stole vast portions of the state's property and gave it to his cronies. Unfortunately, the West had already branded Yeltsin as one of the "good guys", so this kleptocracy went largely unreported by the Western media. Putin did a lot to reverse this trend; which partially explains why he's so popular in Russia today (if he were eligible to run again, he'd be an automatic shoo-in to win). Yeltsin's memory, on the other hand, is absolutely reviled by the Russian people.

[Ziv]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

I don't know how much you know about capitalism, but surrender the fruits of labor is exactly what the worker in a capitalist society does. You don't control your work, you surrender your work in exchange for money. Marx defines this as the alienation of the worker from his product in his Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844.

Umm... I'm no economics major but do work and money not both have value? And since you work voluntarily is it not the same as if you exchanged one good for another? In that case, you consider it in terms of utility (i.e. how much value any one thing has from your perspective) and see that the worker willingly gives up his time and effort in exchange for money, and both the worker and employer are better off because of it.

How would I "control" my work? It seems more like you're just arguing semantics here. Who is forcing me to do something I don't want to do?

One of the key flaws I see in Marxist theory is the idea that everything has a fixed fundamental value, and that exchanging something for an amount not equal to that thing's value is unjust. That's not true. "Value" is relative. Its defined in terms of personal interest. For example, in the 70s, pet rocks were popular. But pet rocks are just normal ordinary rocks. You can find one just like them on the side of the road. Nevertheless, people payed significant amounts of money for them. Does that mean that rocks have some fundamental value that justified that? No. The value exists only in the minds of the people who are willing to offer their work in exchange for it. If I've misunderstood Marxist theory, please correct me.

[WanderingKnight]

How would I "control" my work? It seems more like you're just arguing semantics here. Who is forcing me to do something I don't want to do?

You can choose between that or die of starvation. It doesn't seem much of a choice to me. Even so, many times it happens that even if you choose not to die of starvation, you just end up doing so anyways.

One of the key flaws I see in Marxist theory is the idea that everything has a fixed fundamental value, and that exchanging something for an amount not equal to that thing's value is unjust.

The whole point is that there is no equivalent.

Though I get your point over the "value" of things, it really depends on the society. And that's why I've been saying, over and over and over again, that communism can't be applied to the current society. Concepts like "reward" and "value" (and, of course, "private property") are too rooted to the current sociological mindset. Which doesn't mean it can't change over time.

[Ziv]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

You can choose between that or die of starvation. It doesn't seem much of a choice to me. Even so, many times it happens that even if you choose not to die of starvation, you just end up doing so anyways.

The whole point is that there is no equivalent.

But that would be true regardless of where you are. The same would apply even if someone lived in the middle of the wilderness.

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Though I get your point over the "value" of things, it really depends on the society. And that's why I've been saying, over and over and over again, that communism can't be applied to the current society. Concepts like "reward" and "value" (and, of course, "private property") are too rooted to the current sociological mindset. Which doesn't mean it can't change over time.

Ok here's what I don't understand. Let's use very young children as an example of default fundamental human behavior uncorrupted by society. Even in that case, they will work to their own personal interests. If they touch fire, they will learn not to touch it because it causes them undesirable sensations. If they eat candy they will continue to seek it out because it provides them with desirable sensations. They pay little to no attention to the good of those around them. How then does communism propose to reconcile this? Has some method been worked out to counteract non-altruistic tendencies in people, or does Marxism propose that human psychology is almost completely dependent on society? And even if society did play such a big role in people's views, why is it that there are nevertheless people in capitalist societies who are altruistic?

I would think that rather than starting with revolts, communist societies would start through the voluntary altruism of people who support communism's ideals and naturally spread to those who also have those ideals.

[Supersonic]

Originally Posted by Ziv

Has some method been worked out to counteract non-altruistic tendencies in people

Well I hear when people read from little red books...

[Thingle]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

something exists on paper, no one is given the same opportunities in life.

The whole point of communism is for the workers themselves to own the means of productions

Which the current owners of the means of production would object, of course. What right does the state have to take away my property/my investment and make it public without my consent? Isn't that injustice on their part?
Communism is based on the idea that all who own the means of production are greedy one-uppers who abuse the proletariat. Well, that's not true. It's just that both sides have their own conflicting interests.

Also, how can we, as consumers be assured of the quality and service of the produced goods if there is no alternative to the state-run monopoly? What protection do we as consumers have if they do price manipulation?