StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I have read Mike Wong's essay on communism and socialism and I find it quite interesting though there are some points I must disagree on. I think that communism would be great if it could work, its just too bad that it will never work, because it basis itself on a nonexistent society, full of people who want the best for society overall and can overlook their petty desires in order to serve the greater good. Obviously for you to be able to do that you have to use some pretty huge brainwashing and control, which ends up corrupting the people trying to brainwash because they're controlling, a point of self-defeat for COmmunism.

Many proponents of Communism reply in kind with the "despotic inroads" argument, that for the society to establish itself it must first undergo a totalitarian state. But if we accept Marx's belief that Communism is the natural evolution of society, this would be a de-evolution. The system of government as Marx claimed stretched from a totalitarian/Monarchist/Elitist government, to a Democratic/Industrialized government, to finally Socialism/Communism. For the bourgeousie to relapse into a state of Despotism means that it must once again evolve to a state of Democracy, whereas a cycle of despotism - > Democracy -> despotism recurs. This is perhaps what we see in modern day China, although many argue that it is still a very socialist country, and it surely is, the leeching of capitalism and the increase of free press and gradual opening of the free market of ideas is making the society more and more open, and with it, democracy also is increasing. This is hardly a startling trend, baby United States was hardly one where freedom fully flourished, but it made a dramatic statement in CLAIMING to uphold freedom, something which few other countries did proclaim.

But another interesting point of Communism may be this, as democracy develops questions of government roles in personal lives increase. It has not been a full century since Social Security, TVA, CCC, existed, and they of course were very much social programs. One could even now argue that public transportation is a socialist project. Socialism may in fact be creeping in. Will we ever have a revolution of the working class? Probably not, because even now the working class is slowly disappearing, as people become more educated, as the need for direct menial labor diminishes with the development of technology. The economic gap of society is consistently moving upwards with standards of living, and this of course eliminates the full dream of Marx, because the industrial class may soon become managerial, and those are the antithesis of Marx's utopia.

Marx's utopia where I would do nothing but work my ass off? Fuck that, I prefer the real world, where I at least get days off and vacations and can easily buy cool shit.

STEVE SMASH PUNY COMMUNIST!!!!

"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff." - Frank Zappa

If I have any problems with communism, it isn't about logic or rationality (although some of Marx' ramblings are self-contradictory - I'll explain if you don't understand) - but mainly that the system requires a fair amount of bloodshed in order to work properly.

As Iceberg pointed out with Zappa's quote, the less people want to have their property rights abolished, the more opposition there is towards socialism.... and the more opposition, the more bloodshed. However, capitalism isn't completely innocent either. (capitalism is quite brutal if taken to extremes!!)

Steve wrote:Marx's utopia where I would do nothing but work my ass off? Fuck that, I prefer the real world, where I at least get days off and vacations and can easily buy cool shit.

STEVE SMASH PUNY COMMUNIST!!!!

Marx's utopia didn't involve working ones 'ass' off. He actually placed a very high importance on peoples leisure time. Although in how this would actually work, he is rather vague...

AltoidMaster wrote:full of people who want the best for society overall and can overlook their petty desires in order to serve the greater good.

Many systems use 'perfect' people as their examples. For instance Friedman's monetarism operated on the assumption that people would always have full information on which to act, when dealing with markets which as we saw was wrong. People are just too damn unpredictable.

One could even now argue that public transportation is a socialist project. Socialism may in fact be creeping in.

Not really. It's a public project but has very little to do with socialism. It's not about ideology, it's about common sense I think. There are just some services where it makes sense to have some form of public ownership, as it's cheaper and more efficient. Conservatives have been very clever in persuading people that Government by definition is ineffiecient, which is not true.

The economic gap of society is consistently moving upwards with standards of living, and this of course eliminates the full dream of Marx, because the industrial class may soon become managerial, and those are the antithesis of Marx's utopia.

Yet the gap between the rich and poor is constantly increasing. Rich workers have seen salaries explode in the past few decades, while in real terms poor peoples salaries have fallen.

Corporations have also seen their tax burden slashed and as a result more of the tax revenue has to be raised from somewhere else, often falling on those who can least afford it. Social mobility one of things the US is famed for and one of the reasons, such great inequality is acceptred in the US, is actually no greater, and sometimes less in the US than Europe.

Perhaps if there is a stranglehold on Government by Conservatives for a prolonged period of time, maybe fifty/sixty years(we've alreay had 20) poorer people will grow more sceptical of the so-called 'American dream', and try and do something to alleviate poverty. Although it's almost unthinkable that any sort of revolution would take place.[/quote]

Since i can't quote I'll point out of your arguments Jock

Many systems use 'perfect' people as their examples. For instance Friedman's monetarism operated on the assumption that people would always have full information on which to act, when dealing with markets which as we saw was wrong. People are just too damn unpredictable.

Perfect people AREN'T the example here, they are the NECESSITY for the system to survive. Greed is contagious and if even one person in a thousand is self-serving in a Marxist society he would eventually ruin the whole thing. That's why Marx suggested an active secret police and readily killing those who opposed the system. This is a NECESSITY. People may be unpredictable, but we can minimize their resistence through conditioning, as Brave New World did (although not with quite the simplicity that Huxley proposes). The people who resist are killed and their property stripped.

This is the way Marx hopes to maintain his society.

Not really. It's a public project but has very little to do with socialism. It's not about ideology, it's about common sense I think. There are just some services where it makes sense to have some form of public ownership, as it's cheaper and more efficient. Conservatives have been very clever in persuading people that Government by definition is ineffiecient, which is not true.

The very basic IDEA of socialism is that the government must provide people with SOME means, and general is taken to the extreme. Say what you will, the fact that public transportation is government owned, and provided, is a social project, and VERY socialist. And why is it sohard to believe? Not all social programs are bad, Social Security isn't THAT awful. Just because you don't like the word socialism doesn't mean that some projects are socialistic.

Yet the gap between the rich and poor is constantly increasing. Rich workers have seen salaries explode in the past few decades, while in real terms poor peoples salaries have fallen.

Corporations have also seen their tax burden slashed and as a result more of the tax revenue has to be raised from somewhere else, often falling on those who can least afford it. Social mobility one of things the US is famed for and one of the reasons, such great inequality is acceptred in the US, is actually no greater, and sometimes less in the US than Europe.

Perhaps if there is a stranglehold on Government by Conservatives for a prolonged period of time, maybe fifty/sixty years(we've alreay had 20) poorer people will grow more sceptical of the so-called 'American dream', and try and do something to alleviate poverty. Although it's almost unthinkable that any sort of revolution would take place

My point wasn't that the social gap was closing, it certianly isn't, but that the economic situation in terms of standard of living is CONSTANTLY increasing. And the vast pool of laborers which Marx REQUIRES to carry out HIS plan of Communism are disappearing. I did not say anythign else.

Greed is contagious and if even one person in a thousand is self-serving in a Marxist society he would eventually ruin the whole thing

It really depends. If only one person was being greedy(highly hypothetical and unlikely I agree) I don't think they'd last long. I don't think it would create anything but resentment, of course I may be wrong. Looking at it now, unless some sort of anti-greed pill is invented(which would be comercial suicide! It wont happen)

The very basic IDEA of socialism is that the government must provide people with SOME means, and general is taken to the extreme.

I don't think so. Socialism IS 'the extreme'. Social projects for the well being of the people are different. Socialism has these days, whether you agree with it or not, a lot of stigma attached. In my view a 'social project' isn't socialist in because it doesn't make any pretensions to be. It still opeates fully within the market economy, yet recognises that some things are best left as near monopolies, health for example.

Europe has 'public health' services, not because of any delusions about being socialist, it's more the recognition that some things such as health and education must be wholly universal. Not because it helps to create conditions for socialism, but because it helps the social and economic wellbeing of a sociaty.

Say what you will, the fact that public transportation is government owned, and provided, is a social project, and VERY socialist.

Perhaps, I just think we may be looking at different ideas of socialism. You looking at it from operating inside a capitalist society, and me seeing it as unable to operate within that framework.

And why is it sohard to believe? Not all social programs are bad, Social Security isn't THAT awful. Just because you don't like the word socialism doesn't mean that some projects are socialistic.

I do like the word socialism, but I'm afraid I see it in the context that Britains NHS etc only ever paid lip service to socialism.

My point wasn't that the social gap was closing, it certianly isn't, but that the economic situation in terms of standard of living is CONSTANTLY increasing

My mistake:). Although standard of living is not constantly increasing. For the moment yes, but we've not been in a real shit-faced panic recession for a while.

Thank you for your prompt reply Jock.

It really depends. If only one person was being greedy(highly hypothetical and unlikely I agree) I don't think they'd last long. I don't think it would create anything but resentment, of course I may be wrong. Looking at it now, unless some sort of anti-greed pill is invented(which would be comercial suicide! It wont happen)

But greed IS contagious, because even when we keep thinking about "the greater good of society" when we see the guy next door being self serving, the question arises "why shouldn't I?" And it grows exponentially

This is why all resistences have to be wiped out.

I don't think so. Socialism IS 'the extreme'. Social projects for the well being of the people are different. Socialism has these days, whether you agree with it or not, a lot of stigma attached. In my view a 'social project' isn't socialist in because it doesn't make any pretensions to be. It still opeates fully within the market economy, yet recognises that some things are best left as near monopolies, health for example.

Europe has 'public health' services, not because of any delusions about being socialist, it's more the recognition that some things such as health and education must be wholly universal. Not because it helps to create conditions for socialism, but because it helps the social and economic wellbeing of a sociaty.

Perhaps, I just think we may be looking at different ideas of socialism. You looking at it from operating inside a capitalist society, and me seeing it as unable to operate within that framework.

These two statements are relatively the same so you'll forgive me if I compile them.

First off, socialism is just the bare concept that government plays a role in maintaining a standard of living for people. A socialist country is one that believes that the government should use socialism in EVERYTHING.

You'll notice that many countries in Europe ARE socialist by definition, and declaration.

What we see today is that Communism is the evil word to use. Socialism is a softer word but still tainted. What you are saying is that because socialism is an ugly word, a social program is not socialist. You can see the problem with such logic.

In the end, I quite agree that we are defining socialism quite differently, you I believe, are taking my statement of a socialist program to be one that supports the eventual development of a socialist nation. This isnot my argument at all. I am merely pointing out the fact that social programs: Health Care, Social Security, Public Transit. These are socialist programs in the simplicity that they are the government providing something for the populace. Not everything is as extreme as a peoples commune and even the TVA. which by far is considered the most socialist program of America, does not mean that the US is not a socialist nation. But its a redefining role of the government.

THe political spectrum is constantly movingto the left. Economics in the US today is no where close to the Social Darwinistic economics of the Gilded Age. The government regulation with anti-trust laws are decidedly a leaving from true laissez-faire. This does not mean to say that the government will eventually control EVERYTHING, but it does a gradual seeping of socialism INTO the system.

The biggest problem I see with most "social Engineering" is it is not done by engineers. What would you say to an engineer that promised to build you a miracle product that you could afford, but only if you supply him with a material that is tougher than kevlar, more heat resistant than tungston or titanium, lighter than aluminum, transparent, and cheaper than cast iron. OH, and there are no serious ecological consequences to making forming, or disposing of. Then when told no such material exists, complains bitterly about how it is the materials fault for not meeting these needs? "People are just not 'good' enough to make communism work!"

Only a philosopher can get away with such crap!

"The biggest problem I see with most "social Engineering" is it is not done by engineers. What would you say to an engineer that promised to build you a miracle product that you could afford, but only if you supply him with a material that is tougher than kevlar, more heat resistant than tungston or titanium, lighter than aluminum, transparent, and cheaper than cast iron. OH, and there are no serious ecological consequences to making forming, or disposing of. Then when told no such material exists, complains bitterly about how it is the materials fault for not meeting these needs? "People are just not 'good' enough to make communism work!"

But even in Engineering certain materials (semi-conductors to say the most obvious) are necessary. IF you don't give the engineer the materials he needs he stil can't do squat, same with the tools he needs. You may think that melting a piece of metal is "brutal" but that's what he needs to do for him to solder something to a circuit board.

You're analogy is a bit off.

Allways with the doublespeak. Humans are not inanimate objects, so "melting" them, especialy against their wishes refers to?
As far as materials like semi-condutors being needed, well that's only if you want to make transistors. Vacuum tubes work just fine with NO rare earths, or no ultra pure silicone wafers. You need these materials ONLY if you want to make this particular product.
You need perfect people only for this system. There is already a system that works well with what we already HAVE. Don't tell us to throw away our vacuum tubes, until something proven better comes along.
You miss the point emtirely. Engineers must make the best with what they HAVE, not what they WANT to have.
I can make you a wonder widget, all I need is 2. kg of unbelieveum, 4 kg of unobtainium, and 1gram of tooexpencium.
Once again, what do you mean with your "melting" analogy. Is it "cracking eggs" to make an omlette. People are not eggs, and don't like being cracked. They also don't like their friend, relatives, or loved ones "cracked"
It is amazing how much suffering you will tollerate, as long as it isn't YOURS! Or are you stepping to the front of the line, to be "melted"?
Oh, and trying to change human nature (Torture, drugs, genetic mods) is not the same as discovering or creating NEW materials. The old ones are still around, properties unchanged.
The gram of tooexpencium is for the engineer.
Communism is already defacto consigned to the ashcan of history,with other proven bad ideas. No one outside of the "chosen" few (despots)who have actualy LIVED in a communist country ever liked it better than capitalism.
Too bad religion can't go there too.

Allways with the doublespeak. Humans are not inanimate objects, so "melting" them, especialy against their wishes refers to?
As far as materials like semi-condutors being needed, well that's only if you want to make transistors. Vacuum tubes work just fine with NO rare earths, or no ultra pure silicone wafers. You need these materials ONLY if you want to make this particular product.
You need perfect people only for this system. There is already a system that works well with what we already HAVE. Don't tell us to throw away our vacuum tubes, until something proven better comes along.
You miss the point emtirely. Engineers must make the best with what they HAVE, not what they WANT to have.
I can make you a wonder widget, all I need is 2. kg of unbelieveum, 4 kg of unobtainium, and 1gram of tooexpencium.
Once again, what do you mean with your "melting" analogy. Is it "cracking eggs" to make an omlette. People are not eggs, and don't like being cracked. They also don't like their friend, relatives, or loved ones "cracked"
It is amazing how much suffering you will tollerate, as long as it isn't YOURS! Or are you stepping to the front of the line, to be "melted"?
Oh, and trying to change human nature (Torture, drugs, genetic mods) is not the same as discovering or creating NEW materials. The old ones are still around, properties unchanged.
The gram of tooexpencium is for the engineer.
Communism is already defacto consigned to the ashcan of history,with other proven bad ideas. No one outside of the "chosen" few (despots)who have actualy LIVED in a communist country ever liked it better than capitalism.
Too bad religion can't go there too.

Engineers make do with what they have, but sometimes they have to also use what they have to get something better. ON the basic level engineers have dirty metals dirty hands, which would completely ruin processors. What they do is use their materials to help them clean up, make suits to protect against the heat, create special chambers to create the environment where they can work.

That's what brainwashing assumes itself to be. This is the "melting" I speak of. People don't like to be brainwashed, but people are ALWAYS being brainwashed, people are always be conditioned. You just don't notice it because itr happens every second of your life.

When you talk about torture, you keep thinking of conditioning in the Brave New World sense where babies get zapped so they don't like flowers. That's one form of it. Pain is the most fundamental level of conditioning. But look at my Hitler analogy. Look at the way you think! It is a product of your environment, trained and conditioned by multiple factors. You are a product of conditioning and brainwashing.

In the end, you seem to miss the entire point that I wrote an article against Communism and pointed out many flaws in the system and how its self-defeating and contradictory. What I'm doing here is pointing out how your arguments can still be shaped. I disagree with much of your arguments. I'm not defending Communism here, I don't agree with it. What I'm DOING is pointing out the problem in your argument. Don't get all hyperactive and condemning because someone is giving you healthy criticism. In the same way I don't get all jumpy and hyperactive because Jock defined socialism differently then I did. But in the end I must plead you to be objective. Political ideologies are very controversial and touchy things. Don't get too carried away with them.

Oh yes I wanted to point out.

Communists crack ALL the eggs, not a few when it comes to brainwashing. But then again the eggs already get cracked. They're just making an omelette instead of scrambled.

Sample of successful capitalist states:

United States
Canada
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
Australia
plus many more

All successful communist states:

oh wait, there aren't any, sorry

Fellow brother in arms, I salute you, and thank you for your service.

AM:
You leave out the free will aspect, or as a member of the same society as I am in, you would agree. Your disagreement is proof that it doesn't take. I have questioned EVERY one of the moral concepts I espouse, and found out something odd. There is a reason the wisdom of the ages survives. People weren't any less smart 5000 yaers ago, and trial and error has weeded most of the bad ideas out. Like the weeds they are, they pop back up, and still look like shit on the lawn. We keep coming up with more bad one too. Do you disagree because the majority says so, or because you think they are wrong? How did you slip though the wash cycle anyway, or are you somehow "special, and different" from those around you? Do you use your difference of opinion as "proof" of your semi unique status?
I know for a FACT that I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I sure as hell am not the dullest.I have met true geniuses, and I am not one. You are not either. Worse, You apear to be smart, but foolish. (Yes you can be both,like Jimmy Carter, the worst president in resent history, with the highest IQ)Wisdom is what you lack, not cranial candlepower.
Besides, to me IQ is like hair color. Not as important as moral point of view, and willingness to work hard. Raw IQ, or any natural talent isn't as important as what you DO with it.

To a certain extent free will MUST be limited.

To paraphrase a great author, "My right to fling my arms in the air stops where your nose begins".

I don't think I'm a genius, but I don't tell you that you lack wisdom, I'm saying that you are not complete in your arguments, that often times, you argue for the enemy in a non-constructive manner for your own arguments.

Not everyone has to reach the same conclusions when viewing things in the same basic manner. Your questioning of your own moral values still leads to this simple fact, even your end conclusions are a product of your environment, because from the first neuron activity you ever had, you've been trained, coddled, and conditioned by your family, your friends, your government. Even to the moment where you question your own thoughts, it is triggered by something in your life, in your environment. It is still in the end conditioning. Whether you support the conditioning such as torture and propaganda is one thing, but you are STIL conditioned. It's a fact.

And forgive me for asking but I'm reading your post and i have no idea where IQ is becoming the issue here. I believe you are an intelligent being. I think there are few people who aren't inteligent beings. And I certainly don't descriminate against them because of their ideologies.

I discriminate against idiots all the time.

AM:
"Free will must be limited." YOU first.

One of the hallmarks of mathematics, logic, and fairness, is the principal of reciprocity, or, "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander." You don't want a fair world, you want a fantasy world. A world for your benifit, not an unreal one. So when the Q comes to earth, and gives you powers, have at it. That's what it will take too.

I make mistakes, as we all do. I am certain I've made them arguing my case. Once again, BIG PICTURE. You have yet to come up with a way that would work better, and reduce, not increase the total level of pain and suffering in the world.
If you are interested in some VERY boring philosophy, read some Ayn Rand. Drink plenty of water, you will need it. And you are a fool, albeit a bright one. The most dangerous kind, if internet debaiting is not your only outlet for your nonsense. Political opinions have real consequences, and effect on real people. Lenin claimed a baker could run the government, and proceeded to run it with half baked ideas, until Stalin came along, "cracked eggs", and force marched his people into the 21st century.Look at the cost. Since YOU didn't pay it, it was OK eh?
Cheops' Law: "Nothing is impossible, or too unpleasant to do for the man who isn't doing it himself."
The only way your system looks good, is from the top. They ALL look good from the top. How good they look from the bottom is the reality check.

My system only looks bad from the very bottom. As they ALL do. my system allows you to rise, if motivated, and worthy. Worthy to be defined by productivity. Many do not rise, as the middle, and lower levels don't look bad at all, except to "Victo-crats" and others with a bad case of grandiousity, and entittlement.
One of the things that makes God so popular is the idea of being judged, in TOTAL, and rewarded/punished accordingly. That and the ultimate safety net, give the other most popular myth it's great apeal.
Sad, but untrue, as bad thing do happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people.

Ok. This is the final straw.

I regret calling you intelligent because you have utterly failed to meet any standard by your inability to READ.

I do not ARGUE for communism. I made that very clear from the first. I have repeatedly stated it over and over again, but for people like you it seems to miss the mark when one says it out right. Maybe I should use poor sarcasm and dull wit like you do to convey the obvious. What I DO acknowledge and clearly understand BETTER than you do, is the mentality at which Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao approached the ideas of Socialism and Communism.

You are beyond hope if you can't even understand my position in this entire debate.

And btw. I have read Ayn Rand, and she's not too impressive, but I don't go around making crazy assumptions and half-assed comments about her if I don't understand what she's talking about. I appear to have the courtesy of TRYING to act intelligently throughout a debate. Something, you seem to be unable to grasp.

Let's get one damn thing straight here once and for all.

Communism had its chance and it has FAILED MISERABLY. This crap about communism in theory working is a load of useless horseshit. The experiment if over, the jury has decided, the fat lady has sung. Communism was a bad and ineffective idea that has taken the life and liberty of literally millions of people.

In not too many years China will collapse due to the information age, and when Castro dies, Cuba will descent into chaos. Hopefully then we can bring this sorry chapter of the 20th century to a close.

Let's get one damn thing straight here once and for all.

Communism had its chance and it has FAILED MISERABLY. This crap about communism in theory working is a load of useless horseshit. The experiment if over, the jury has decided, the fat lady has sung. Communism was a bad and ineffective idea that has taken the life and liberty of literally millions of people.

In not too many years China will collapse due to the information age, and when Castro dies, Cuba will descent into chaos. Hopefully then we can bring this sorry chapter of the 20th century to a close.

Substantiate your belief when the Chinese government is becoming more stable and not less, when it has been able to survive an election without political coups or huge power struggles, when its people are becoming more and more free, (not as free as America, but improving nonetheless). When countries such as Cuba and China are more successful at providing a basic living standard than any other communist power, when economy is growing and more and more people are becoming served.

The evidence reveals all government exactly as they are, continually growing, and changing. I can't believe I have to repeat myself so many times. Governments and nations are considered practically living entities, who must adapt to different times. Don't be so idiotic that you miss this most basic of points.

Communism has failed in most large nations. The ones still evolving are exactly that: evolving, changing, growing, becoming more stable.

But communism is immensely successful today in a familial group.

Monarchy is STILL alive with countries such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Just because you don't like a form of government doesn't mean its an utter failure.

The experiment is never ending, and there will never be a full jury decision. With that type of thinking, democracy should have collapsed as soon as Athens collapsed. Because from the indication of that time, they failed utterly according to your opinion and monarchy was the only form of government that was successful. But today we see a new type of indirect democracy forming and developing (yes, the US and ALL other countries democratic or otherwise are STILL DEVELOPING) that has been reborn and is flourishing.

There is no such thing as a single "chance" for an ideology. That's the one damn thing to get straight here. PERIOD