"Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity" (1 Viewer)

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Towelie says remove the scarcity on a few key things and suddenly you realise capitalism and communism are so 20th century. We are already approaching universal education, universal food security, and universal shelter in the Western world. The next step is universal connectivity and bandwidth. And then you follow the exponential growth of Moore's law all the way to the technological singularity. Ride the wave of disruptive tech, maaan!

It ain't no joke I'd like to buy the world a toke.

Someone's read accelerando.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

1. Ill just give a wiki definition - Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general.

This is a shaky definition.

How can a "socio-economic structure" is not a conscious agent. Thus to say that a socio-economic structure can promote "the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general", makes not sense.

A better picture can be formed with the help of some quotes from Marx:

To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.
Karl Marx - Critique of the Gotha Program


Communism is the positive supersession of private property as human self-estrangement [alienation], and hence the true appropriation of the human essence through and for man. It is the complete restoration of man to himself as a social — i.e., human — being, a restoration which has become conscious and which takes place within the entire wealth of previous periods of development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature, and between man and man, the true resolution of the conflict between existence and being, between objectification and self-affirmation, between freedom and necessity, between individual and species. It is the solution of the riddle of history and knows itself to be the solution. - Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts

Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence. - The German Ideology


Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.
"In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. - The Communist Manifesto
​

Now if we want to put it concretely, the ICC puts it well when they identify that the economic characteristics that define the communist mode of production are:

1. The only incentive governing production will be the satisfaction of human needs.
2. The goods which society produces will cease to be commodities; exchange-value will disappear and only use value will remain.
3. The present restricted framework hampering the process of production will become more and more socialised. Private ownership of the means of production, whether possessed on an individual basis as in laissez-faire capitalism or by the state as in decadent capitalism, will give way to the socialisation of the means of production. This will mean the end of all private property; the end of the existence of social classes and thus the end of all exploitation. - Perspective of Communism, Part 1

2. Provide evidence that it isn't.

Sorry deary, but your shifting the burden of proof. You are making the assertion, so unless you can provide evidence in support of it we have no reason to take your objection is moot.

Christ, can't you people go more than two posts without making logically fallacious arguments.

Even though it isn't (which im not saying that it isnt) the majority of people are greedy which is evident with all the corruption that is happening and is explored in the media. Just buy a newspaper for one day and see for yourself

Sure, but even if we accept this, how does this prove that greed, corruption and all the other so-called barriers to communism are innate in humanity and comprise a so-called "human nature".

In a FAQ entitled "Misconceptions, Confusions and Conflicts concerning Socialism, Communism and Capitalism" from the Washington State University website, the argument that "Communism could never work because it goes against human nature. People are naturally more competitive than cooperative" is answered as follows:

This argument is actually dealt with by Marx himself in the Manifesto, where he puts forward his view that there is no such thing as fixed "human nature." Human attitudes and behavior are constantly reshaped by the changing economic systems in which people find themselves. Engels went on to spend a good deal of effort showing that early hunter-gatherer and village societies depended far more on cooperation than on competition.

The Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin made the classic argument against social Darwinism in his Mutual Aid (1902), and leftist social scientists have developed it further. In many cultures prestige or authority are more highly prized than property, and competition may be expressed by acts of even radical "selflessness" such as giving away almost all one's wealth in the "potlatches" of certain northwest tribes of Native Americans. Capitalism, socialists argue, simply brings these otherwise marginal emotions to the center and exaggerates them, stripping people of the strong ties which unite groups based on tradition, honor, religion, etc.
​

3. Again from wiki: Greed is the selfish desire for or pursuit of money, wealth, power, food, or other possessions, especially when this denies the same goods to others. Because of this desire for wealth, money, food etc. it is not possible to have an egalitarian, classless, stateless society because people will do whatever they can to get what they want through this idea called freedom.

To combat this point I will once again cite the ICC from the Perspective of Communism, Part 2:

‘Human nature’ is a bit like the Philosophers’ Stone for which the alchemists searched for centuries. Up till now, all significant studies of ‘social invariants’ (as the sociologists would have it) — i.e. characteristics of human behaviour which are the same in all societies — have ended up showing the extent to which human psychology and attitudes are variable and linked to the social framework in which the individual develops. In fact, if we wanted to point to a fundamental characteristic of this ‘human nature’, to the feature which distinguishes man from other animals, we would have to point out the enormous importance of ‘acquired’ as opposed to the ‘innate’; to the decisive role played by education, by the social environment in which human beings grow up.

[...]

The peevish-minded will object to this by saying that if asocial behaviour exists, no matter what form it takes, in different forms of society, it’s because at the root of ‘human nature’ there’s an anti-social element, an element of aggressiveness against others, of ‘potential criminality’. They will argue that, very often, people don’t steal out of material necessity; that gratuitous crime exists; that if the Nazis could commit such atrocities, it’s because there’s something evil in Man, which comes to the surface in certain conditions. In fact such objections only show that there’s no human nature which is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in itself; Man is a social animal whose numerous potentialities take on different expressions depending on the conditions that are lived in. Statistics speak eloquently on this question: is it ‘human nature’ which gets worse during periods of crisis in society, when we see a growth in criminality and all kinds of morbid behaviour? On the contrary, isn’t the development of ‘asocial’ attitudes among an increasing number of individuals the expression of the fact that the existing society is becoming more and more incapable of satisfying human needs - needs which are eminently social and which can no longer be satisfied in a system which is less and less functioning as a society, a community?

The same peevish spirits base their rejection of the possibility of communism on the following argument: ‘You talk about a society which will really satisfy human needs, but the desire for property and power over others are themselves essential human needs, and communism, which excludes them, is therefore unable to satisfy human needs. Communism is impossible because man is egoistic.’

In her ‘Introduction to Political Economy’ Rosa Luxemburg described the reaction of the British bourgeoisie when, in the cause of conquering India, they came across peoples who had no private property. They consoled themselves by saying that these people were ‘savages’, but it was still rather embarrassing for people who had been taught that private property was something ‘natural’ to conclude that it was precisely these ‘savages’ who had the most ‘artificial’ way of living! In reality, humanity has such a ‘natural need for private property’ that it did without it for over a million years. And in many cases it was only after bloody massacres, as in the case of the Indians described by Rosa Luxemburg, that they were instilled with this ‘natural need’. It’s the same with commerce, that ‘unique, natural’ form of the circulation of goods, the natives’ ignorance of which so scandalised the colonialists. Inseparable from private property, it arose with it and will disappear with it.

There’s also the idea that if there was no profit to stimulate the development of production, if the individual effort of the worker wasn’t recompensed by a wage, no one would produce anything anymore. True enough, no one would produce in a capitalist way anymore; i.e. in a system based on profit and wage labour, where the slightest scientific discovery has to be financially viable, where work is a curse to the overwhelming majority of workers, on account of its length, its intensity, and its inhuman form. On the other hand, does the scientist who, through his research, participates in the progress of technology, always need a material stimulant to work? Generally they’re paid less than the sales executive who makes no contribution to the advancement of knowledge. Is manual labour necessarily disagreeable? If so, why do people talk about the ‘love of craftsmanship’, why is there such a craze for ‘do-it-yourself’ and all sorts of manual activities which are often very expensive? In fact, when labour isn’t alienated, absurd, exhausting, when its products no longer become forces hostile to the workers, but serve to really satisfy the needs of the collective then labour will become a prime human need, one of the essential forms of the flourishing of human potential. In communist society, human beings will produce for pleasure.

[...]

‘Everyone for themselves’ is supposed to be a basic human characteristic. It’s undoubtedly a characteristic of bourgeois humanity with its ideal of the ‘self-made man’, but this is simply the ideological expression of the economic reality of capitalism and has nothing to do with ‘human nature’. Otherwise one would have to say that ‘human nature’ has been radically transformed since primitive communism, or even since feudalism with its village communities. In fact individualism massively entered the world of ideas when small independent owners appeared in the countryside (when serfdom was abolished) and in the towns. Made up of small owners who had been successful - mainly by ruining their rivals - the bourgeoisie was a fanatical adherent of this ideology and saw it as a fact of nature. For example, it had no scruples about using Darwin’s theory of evolution to justify the social ‘struggle for survival’, the war of all against all.

But with the appearance of the proletariat, the associated class par excellence, a breach was opened in the domination of individualism. For the working class, solidarity is the elementary precondition for defending its material interests. At this level of reasoning, we can already reply to those who claim that human beings are ‘naturally egoistic’. If they are egoistic they are also intelligent, and the simple desire to defend their interests pushes them towards association and solidarity as soon as the social conditions allow it. But this isn’t all: in this social being par excellence, solidarity and altruism are essential needs in more ways than one. People need the solidarity of others, but they also need to show solidarity to others. This is something which can be seen even in a society as alienated as ours, expressed in the seemingly banal idea that ‘everyone needs to feel useful to others’. Some will argue that altruism is also a form of egoism because those that practise it do it above all for their own pleasure. Fair enough - but that’s just another way of putting forward the idea defended by communists that there is no essential opposition - on the contrary - between individual interest and collective interest. The opposition between individual and society is an expression of societies of exploitation, societies based on private property (i.e. private to others), and all this is very logical - how could there be a harmony between those who suffer from oppression and the very institutions that guarantee and perpetuate this oppression? In such a society, altruism can only appear in the form of charity or of sacrifice, i.e. the negation of others or the negation of oneself; it does not appear as the affirmation, the common and complementary flowering of the self and others.

Contrary to what the bourgeoisie would like us to believe, communism is not, therefore, the negation of individuality. It is capitalism, which reduces the worker to an appendage of the machine, which negates individuality; and this negation of the individual has reached its most extreme limits under the specific form of capitalism in decay: state capitalism. In communism, in a society which has got rid of that enemy of freedom par excellence - the state, which will have no reason for existing - each member of society will be living in the reign of freedom. Because humanity can only realise its innumerable potentialities in a social way, and because the antagonisms between individual interest and collective interest will have disappeared, new and immense vistas will be opened up for the flowering of each individual.

​

 

[Zeitgeist308]

You young people who tout Communism as "great" are misguided.

And you people who can't differentiate between "Communist States" and Marxist communism are even more misguided.

It's a form of slavery and repression.

No capitalism, feudalism and slavery are "slavery and repression". This of course includes the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, China and all other "Communist states" because they were after all state capitalist (read the series by Aufheben entitled "What was the USSR" Part I, II, III, IV for more info)

The "workers paradise" theory is bogus, Government is corrupt and big governments are the most corrupt.

Communism has nothing to do with big government. Read a book.

My family came from Communist countries and my relatives nearly starved to death for the "common good".

No actually they nearly starved to death serving the needs of capital, just like all working people all across the globe do everyday.

The Communists are liars who force you to worship them and you become a slave to them.

Straw man once again. (Though atleast you capitalised the "C")

you will never starve to death in this country

There is absolute poverty in Australia. While not to be compared with the tragedies of millions of people in African countries starving to death, it is a real problem. There are many Aboriginal people in remote communities who live in some form of absolute poverty as do many of the 100,000 homeless people existing in and around our cities.
There have been a number of recent studies that have attempted to estimate the actual numbers of Australians who live in poverty. The results vary widely from 3 million (St. Vincent de Paul Society), to 1.5 million (Brotherhood of St. Laurence) and even the most
conservative estimate by the Centre For Independent Studies found "a million Australians live in chronic poverty". The National Council of Churches reported the telling fact that in 2003, 2.5 million people asked the Salvation Army and other welfare agencies for assistance with basic food, clothing and shelter.- Australian Options
​

*Beware of the social-democratic bias in the above*

Socialism is slavery because the workers paradise is an illusion not a reality. Human nature makes it impossible for us to be all equal and therefore the best thing we can do is rely on our own abilities and not on government handouts.

Not only this this once again a straw man this has been completely refuted by myself above.

It's a Jewish system made up my leftist Jews.

Indeed, it's a global Zionist conspiracy to take over the world...

 

[Zeitgeist308]

proletariat greed brings about communism and bourgeois greed brings about its collapse?

How dare those greedy workers demand higher wages let alone and end to the wage system all together...

Towelie says remove the scarcity on a few key things and suddenly you realise capitalism and communism are so 20th century.

Sorry there Towlie, state capitalism and social welfare does not do away with classes, class antagonisms and their foundation in the alienating and exploitative social relations of capitalist production

Someone's read accelerando.

Still having trouble piecing together an argument are we?

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Still having trouble piecing together an argument are we?

I'm reading some of your recommendations.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

I'm reading some of your recommendations.

Thank you, I'm glad to hear they aren't being ignored

 

[zstar]

And you people who can't differentiate between "Communist States" and Marxist communism are even more misguided.

No capitalism, feudalism and slavery are "slavery and repression". This of course includes the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, China and all other "Communist states" because they were after all state capitalist (read the series by Aufheben entitled "What was the USSR" Part I, II, III, IV for more info)

Put that Marxist BS away and start reading Milton Friedman

Communism has nothing to do with big government. Read a book.

I've read more than you son and I think about what I'm reading.

What Communism says and what Communism does are 2 different things for example Communism promises many things and none of them are viable.


Communism requires the state to own the means of production therefore that requires a huge bureaucracy where the government micro manages everything. Furthermore Marx stated that a dictatorship was necessary until Communism was achieved (Once again a pipe dream) therefore Socialism > Confiscation of property > Dictatorship > Communism (something unachievable)

No actually they nearly starved to death serving the needs of capital, just like all working people all across the globe do everyday.

No they starved to death because of a bunch of Bolsheviks took over the farms then decided that they would be ones who decided who got what and gave all the food to the army while the people were dying off. They were not given a choice to work for anything or anyone.

Straw man once again. (Though atleast you capitalised the "C")

They are liars and cheats that's a fact, Communist leaders live in luxury while the people are deprived of information and wealth however Communist leaders seem to always have their palaces and reserve of fresh food.

There is absolute poverty in Australia. While not to be compared with the tragedies of millions of people in African countries starving to death, it is a real problem. There are many Aboriginal people in remote communities who live in some form of absolute poverty as do many of the 100,000 homeless people existing in and around our cities.
There have been a number of recent studies that have attempted to estimate the actual numbers of Australians who live in poverty. The results vary widely from 3 million (St. Vincent de Paul Society), to 1.5 million (Brotherhood of St. Laurence) and even the most
conservative estimate by the Centre For Independent Studies found "a million Australians live in chronic poverty". The National Council of Churches reported the telling fact that in 2003, 2.5 million people asked the Salvation Army and other welfare agencies for assistance with basic food, clothing and shelter.- Australian Options
​

*Beware of the social-democratic bias in the above*

Aboriginals are poor because they don't work and don't care, The government gives them handouts (note: that's a social program) and they spend their time abusing alcohol and other substances. In fact Aboriginals faired better when the government didn't give them welfare and were working.

Not only this this once again a straw man this has been completely refuted by myself above.

You haven't refuted anything, You and the other neo-marxists can repackage Socialism and Communism all you want but a turd is still a turd.

People need incentive to work and produce, The notion that everyone can be equal is not possible do you understand? It doesn't work and has never worked and never will work in this world. When government promises anything it is a load of nonsense.

Indeed, it's a global Zionist conspiracy to take over the world...

Look up Zionist banker Jacob Schiff who collaborated with Leon Trotsky (aka David Bronstein to bring down the Tsardom in the Russian empire)

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Even if a small minority is greedy then my argument still works. It wont be classless because people will act on there greed.

Next time take a stab at a biological perspective mang. It'll be much kooler.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Put that Marxist BS away and start reading Milton Friedman

Put the Libertarian BS away and start reading Marx. (See I can make useless one liners as well )

What Communism says and what Communism does are 2 different things for example Communism promises many things and none of them are viable.

Who are these "communists" you speak of exactly? Would you care to provide some examples of their "promises" and why they are not "viable".

Communism requires the state to own the means of production therefore that requires a huge bureaucracy where the government micro manages everything.

Sorry to break it to you buddy, but you obviously do not what you are talking about:

But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution - Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
​

Furthermore Marx stated that a dictatorship was necessary until Communism was achieved

Again you do not know what you are talking about. You are talking the word "dictatorship: out of context. Read The Dictatorship of the Proletariat in Marx and Engels by Hal Draper and learn something.

No they starved to death because of a bunch of Bolsheviks took over the farms then decided that they would be ones who decided who got what and gave all the food to the army while the people were dying off.

Wait, this is communism?

They were not given a choice to work for anything or anyone.

That's right, they were forced to work for the state, just like I am forced to perform alienating and exploitative work for my private employer today. Capitalism is capitalism.

Communist leaders live in luxury while the people are deprived of information and wealth however Communist leaders seem to always have their palaces and reserve of fresh food.

Sounds a lot like a capitalist ruling class, hey.

Aboriginals are poor because they don't work and don't care, The government gives them handouts (note: that's a social program) and they spend their time abusing alcohol and other substances.

Please don't use such offensive stereotypes to generalise an entire people. No one likes a racist pig.

You haven't refuted anything, You and the other neo-marxists can repackage Socialism and Communism all you want but a turd is still a turd.

I'm afraid I'm not repackaging anything. I've provide extensive quotations from Marx and Engels to prove this (and can provide more if you so wish). Are you saying that Marx and Engels pre-packaged communism ahead of time?

People need incentive to work and produce

Incentive =/= coercion.

The notion that everyone can be equal is not possible do you understand?

What do you mean by "equal". Where and in what sense have I been arguing for "equality"?

It doesn't work and has never worked and never will work in this world.

You make a very convincing argument indeed...

Look up Zionist banker Jacob Schiff who collaborated with Leon Trotsky (aka David Bronstein to bring down the Tsardom in the Russian empire)

That's a very strong link indeed. I think you might well be onto something

So wait let me get this straight, communism isn't something that can be implemented, its just an ideology?

No. Communism refers to a movement and a mode of production.

What communism is not is an ideal society, a utopia, the product of a great mind which we attempt to create.

Rather it is the itself revolutionary workers movement (communist) and eventually a fully realised communist society which emerge out of capitalist society itself through the conflict of all its internal antagonisms.

My sig puts this very well.

 

[Silver Persian]

I think the three best criticisms of Marxism are

1) essentialist ontology of labout
2) what socialism is is very loosely defined ("free association of men?")
- so that any empirical reality that isn't utopian can be easily regarded as "not what Marx meant".
3) Marxism is a critical theory. It is meant to "express the consciousness of the proletariat". If it doesn't inspire the proletariat into revolutionary action, it has failed. And at this moment, it doesn't seem that this is particularly likely (Although I can't prove that this will never happen)


I'd also point out that Marx changes his mind several times about whether he thinks the emergence of communism is the inevitable outcome of capitalism, or whether it comes down to the contingent question of whether the proletariat develops class consciosness.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

I think the three best criticisms of Marxism are

1) essentialist ontology of labout

I am afraid I do not understand this criticism. Would you care to elaborate?

2) what socialism is is very loosely defined ("free association of men?")
- so that any empirical reality that isn't utopian can be easily regarded as "not what Marx meant".

1. The vagueness that permeates discussion on the nature of communism comes down to that fact that - to paraphrase Marx - we can't dictate the recipes for the cooks of tomorrow. To bring it back to my signature, Communism is not a utopia that must be realised, it is the real movement of the working class against it's current conditions.

2. Of course the empirical reality of the USSR and the other "socialist states" can be dismissed, but only in so far as they represented actual communism or socialism. Their are of course many lessons to be learnt from the mistakes and failings as well as the victories and successes in the history of the workers movement. This we can not ignore, but the argument that communism and Marxism are failed ideologies on the basis that "communist states" where communist and their fall represents the fall of communism can be.

3) Marxism is a critical theory. It is meant to "express the consciousness of the proletariat". If it doesn't inspire the proletariat into revolutionary action, it has failed.

This is not true. Marxism is the theoretical expression of the class struggle, not the inspiration to the proletariat. The proletariat are made to struggle by the objective antagonisms of capitalist relations of production and their place within them. It is through this struggle that the proletariat acquire a "consciousness" as a unified class with unified aims and objectives diametrically opposed to the present social relations. "Class consciousness" must not and can not be brought to the workers as in the Kautskyist-Leninist conception).

I'd also point out that Marx changes his mind several times about whether he thinks the emergence of communism is the inevitable outcome of capitalism, or whether it comes down to the contingent question of whether the proletariat develops class consciosness.

Would you please provide evidence in substantiate these claims.

Where you are mistaken is that you forget that the development of "class consciousness" is fundamentally the product of material conditions of capitalism. "Class consciousness" is not and can not be independent of capitalism. A good article to read on this matter is Gilles Dauvé's The Renegade Kautsky and his Disciple Lenin.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Basically, for people who do not willingly participate, communism is akin to slavery.

lolwut? how is it slavery, exactly? The farmer is being rewarded for his work by inclusion in society and having his needs provided to him, no? If this is slavery, is work under a [total] capitalist society not slavery also? If I choose not to work, probably for something that I don't enjoy/want to do, I am booted out of society with no means of support hence survival. My work is not voluntary, it is forced, ergo I'm a slave.

your problems, though not agreeable, are to be found in capitalism too, so you can hardly deride communism based off problems that occur in capitalism also. Seek to point out the unique deficiencies, says the wise monkey.

Instead of embracing greed, as capitalism does, communism is crippled by it.

Yes but capitalism has hardly proven itself to be a fair or enjoyable exercise for the many.

 

[untouchablecuz]

Nebuchanezzar, are you by any chance assyrian/middle eastern?

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Nebuchanezzar, are you by any chance assyrian/middle eastern?

He's as white as the least tanned part of an eskimo's balls.

 

[DdalgiJuice]

i dont find why communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity. sure it leads to poverty and desperation, but i guess it has become so due to the "leaders" who execute communism. like the North korean dictator, Stalin, and so on. its just the leaders who are evil, sly, cunning, manipulative, and greedy that deters the real system of 'communism'. marx who had come up with the idea didnt mean it for porverty. if communism was carried out correctly as it shud, it could may even be the best system. equality, no poverty, no lvling out of 'middle class', upper class, and so on. but of course no matter how bad we want things and no matter how hard we try, we cant possibly create a utopia. well if u keep on arguing that communism is the most evil unleashed on humanity, lets take a look at capitalism. u can get rich, buy ur own house and land, invest and get even more rich. but what about the homeless people on the street. what ways do they have to get back on their feet and get rich?. sure collect cans, and earn few cents and constantly trying wud get u somewhere, but in reality the gap between lowerclass and upperclass is just widening. u cant be so biased on one ideology just because it may work for u. there are always good side and bad side for everything.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

He's as white as the least tanned part of an eskimo's balls.

Haha. Yeah. I'm a white Scot/Brit half breed.

Slavery (also called thralldom) is a social-economic system under which certain person are deprived of personal freedom and compelled to work.

works with respect to your beloved capitalist society. I am compelled to work, I have very little freedom to not work. I could choose not to, but that would result in further deprivation of the things I like, much like in a communist society, no?

 

[zeam]

zeitgeist...reason why i ask is because he alway talking about conspiracy and stuff like zeighgeist ok..on youtube~~~~also....i find hard to undeerstand...you support communism?

 

[zeam]

ohmygod.

b!tch, stop follow me around threads...internet stalker

 

[Zeitgeist308]

The idea behind communism is that all people contribute to the common good, and everyone "owns" the common good, amirite?

Yes I suppose you could put it that way. "Ownership" (if one could even use the word) is collective and as such the social product is collective "property" (if one could use the word) of society (which will be the collective association of free producers).

So, how do you go about enforcing this?

In so far as communist relations of production know no classes and no class antagonisms their can be no "enforcing" of these relations.

What if not everyone wants to share what they make?

Unless you're Robinson Crusoe I'd love to how and what you make independently. People do not live on islands, they interact with other humans in society and enter into social relations of production. Whilst property is private as in capitalism these relations will be one of subjugation and domination. When property is collective these relations will be between free and equal producers acting for the fulfilment of their immediate physical needs, the over-fulfilment of these needs (ie. "wants", luxuries) but also their own intellectual needs and the stimulation, fulfilment and enjoyment of productive self-activity

Say a farmer is self-supporting; he doesn't need to help his neighbors, he only needs to grow enough for himself and no more.

How a single farmer can maintain himself at more than a subsistence level by his labour, land and and productive property alone is beyond me. In so farm as the farmer desires better living standards for himself he is urged by necessity to enter into social relationships beyond his will and take part in either cooperative or coercive social labour.

Communism says that someone, some "controlling entity," goes and forces the farmer to grow more and give some of it up to the rest of the people, the "common good."

No, "communism" doesn't say this at all. The farmer (if we can even speak of the a farmer considering the abolition of the social division of labour) will produce for his immediate physical needs but also for his physical and intellectual "wants".

There can be no controlling entity which forces the farmer to labour beyond his freewill. The farmer will labour for the fulfilment of the collective human needs of society.

1). Who decides how much our sample farmer has to produce?

The farmer in accordance with the community will collectively decide what to produce.

2). Who decides which part of his produce the farmer allots? If he's a dairy farmer, he'd much prefer to give his old and ailing cows to the State, and keep the healthier ones (or the State just forces him to give the better ones, in which the State has control and the farmer is, again, just a slave to it).

You are here mistaken. You seem to believe that private property will continue to exist. Neither the farmer or the state (which will no longer exist) will be allotted a certain quantity of productive forces. The productive forces will be utilised in common with the rational planning of the needs of society. On the question of the social product, likewise, the farmer will take as he needs in accordance with the needs of community.

3). How can you force the farmer to do anything?

You can't. The individual must be free to do away with his labour as he wishes in accordance with the rational planning of the human needs of the community.

In capitalism, he'd just have nothing but food because he'd have no extra money.

Well actually it's far more likely that our hypothetical subsistence farmer would be forced off his land and into the city in order to provide for his family or be or have his land bought out from under him and be turned into an agricultural labourer.

Basically, for people who do not willingly participate, communism is akin to slavery.

Please elaborate.

people are greedy and want the best for themselves, and many of them would do their best to cheat the system so they get it.

This argument is not only baseless is does not refute in anyway workability of communist relations of production. Of course people want to better their living conditions. This can be achieved through collective social labour.

Instead of embracing greed, as capitalism does

But it is because, as you say, "capitalism embraces greed" that it undermines its own basis by creating a mass of propertyless, exploited and alienated wage labourers who's interest lies necessarily in the abolition of capitalist relations.

The fact of the matter is however, the workability of communism is irrelevant. The class struggle and it's tendency towards the revolutionary destruction of capitalism is. Even if communism is a pipe dream you can not stop the class struggle so long as classes exist.

@ DdalgiJuice - I'm not even going to bother responding to your post. Please read over this thread.

like zeighgeist ok..on youtube

Sorry, but I don't do conspiracy theories. My user name come from the German word meaning "spirit of the times" but literaly translated to mean "time ghost".

 

[jb_nc]

Yes I suppose you could put it that way. "Ownership" (if one could even use the word) is collective and as such the social product is collective "property" (if one could use the word) of society (which will be the collective association of free producers).



In so far as communist relations of production know no classes and no class antagonisms their can be no "enforcing" of these relations.



Unless you're Robinson Crusoe I'd love to how and what you make independently. People do not live on islands, they interact with other humans in society and enter into social relations of production. Whilst property is private as in capitalism these relations will be one of subjugation and domination. When property is collective these relations will be between free and equal producers acting for the fulfilment of their immediate physical needs, the over-fulfilment of these needs (ie. "wants", luxuries) but also their own intellectual needs and the stimulation, fulfilment and enjoyment of productive self-activity



How a single farmer can maintain himself at more than a subsistence level by his labour, land and and productive property alone is beyond me. In so farm as the farmer desires better living standards for himself he is urged by necessity to enter into social relationships beyond his will and take part in either cooperative or coercive social labour.



No, "communism" doesn't say this at all. The farmer (if we can even speak of the a farmer considering the abolition of the social division of labour) will produce for his immediate physical needs but also for his physical and intellectual "wants".

There can be no controlling entity which forces the farmer to labour beyond his freewill. The farmer will labour for the fulfilment of the collective human needs of society.



The farmer in accordance with the community will collectively decide what to produce.



You are here mistaken. You seem to believe that private property will continue to exist. Neither the farmer or the state (which will no longer exist) will be allotted a certain quantity of productive forces. The productive forces will be utilised in common with the rational planning of the needs of society. On the question of the social product, likewise, the farmer will take as he needs in accordance with the needs of community.



You can't. The individual must be free to do away with his labour as he wishes in accordance with the rational planning of the human needs of the community.



Well actually it's far more likely that our hypothetical subsistence farmer would be forced off his land and into the city in order to provide for his family or be or have his land bought out from under him and be turned into an agricultural labourer.



Please elaborate.



This argument is not only baseless is does not refute in anyway workability of communist relations of production. Of course people want to better their living conditions. This can be achieved through collective social labour.



But it is because, as you say, "capitalism embraces greed" that it undermines its own basis by creating a mass of propertyless, exploited and alienated wage labourers who's interest lies necessarily in the abolition of capitalist relations.

The fact of the matter is however, the workability of communism is irrelevant. The class struggle and it's tendency towards the revolutionary destruction of capitalism is. Even if communism is a pipe dream you can not stop the class struggle so long as classes exist.

@ DdalgiJuice - I'm not even going to bother responding to your post. Please read over this thread.

so tell us about the prelim HSC and how it meshes with communism