 |
| |
|
|
Xin Yu
|
 |
Emeryville, CA, USA
Jan 1970
time: 21:29
|
|
The first modern society, IMHO, was the French republic during the French Revolution late 18th century, which failed to accomplish its goals -- Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. However, the idea greatly inspired later societies.
Democracy: Liberty is valued the most; equality is limited to voting rights and some basic human rights; fraternity is deligated to salvage army type organizations instead of being enforced by the government. Under democracy people FEEL (i.e., are cheated into believe) that they have total liberty, equality, and fraternity, although they only enjoy limited rights.
Communism: Liberty is abandoned but equality and fraternity are enforced. Actually communists are telling the truth, which are a) nobody can enjoy true liberty (you can cast a vote every 4 years which makes little difference in your life), and b) liberty is frequently used by the rich to exploit the poor. The communist society therefore abandoned liberty, and thus they are doomed, maybe because 'telling the truth makes one unpopular'?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xin Yu
The first modern society, IMHO, was the French republic during the French Revolution late 18th century, which failed to accomplish its goals -- Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. However, the idea greatly inspired later societies.
Democracy: Liberty is valued the most; equality is limited to voting rights and some basic human rights; fraternity is deligated to salvage army type organizations instead of being enforced by the government. Under democracy people FEEL (i.e., are cheated into believe) that they have total liberty, equality, and fraternity, although they only enjoy limited rights.
Communism: Liberty is abandoned but equality and fraternity are enforced. Actually communists are telling the truth, which are a) nobody can enjoy true liberty (you can cast a vote every 4 years which makes little difference in your life), and b) liberty is frequently used by the rich to exploit the poor. The communist society therefore abandoned liberty, and thus they are doomed, maybe because 'telling the truth makes one unpopular'? |
You can have a democratic communism. You do need to have individuals who believe in it and are willing to contribute to it. That's not impossible. Mentality makes a big difference.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Exploitation, in the Marxist sense of the word, is when you do not get paid the full value of what you produce. In slavery or feudalism exploitation is much easier to recognize. ...The laborer does not get paid the full amount of the value he produces, but instead a portion of that value is appropriated by the capitalist. That appropiration is what Marxists call exploitation. |
So, the Marxist never pays anyone the value of what they produce and somehow this is not exploitation? We earlier had the example of the communist doctor paid the same as the communist nurse even though the doctor has a degree, has more skills and works more hours. Now, from my view, this is outrageous exploitation, fundamentally unfair and a perversion of justice.
But this is rational communism for you.
It also illustrates the fundamental dialectic of the "philosophy." Divert attention, never admit the truth and lie like a dog.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Exploitation, in the Marxist sense of the word, is when you do not get paid the full value of what you produce. In slavery or feudalism exploitation is much easier to recognize. In feudalism, after you spend five days working your own land, you are required to work a day on the Lord's land. That exploitation is very easy to see, and in slavery, you don't even get to work your own land, all the work you do is for the owner. In capitalism, exploitation is more difficult to see because you get paid for your time (except in the case of piece work, but the principle is the same). The same principle applies in capitalism, though. The laborer does not get paid the full amount of the value he produces, but instead a portion of that value is appropriated by the capitalist. That appropiration is what Marxists call exploitation. |
Che I know-- But just because a marxist or anyone else chosses to use this ( in my view ) warped definition does not mean that I have to accept it. I will continue to refuse to accept it. My comment was not ignorance of kid's theoretical model but a rejection of it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xin Yu
|
|
Emeryville, CA, USA
Jan 1970
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Kid, the problem is that communism does not permit dissent and requires all to comply -- or else. People who do not agree cannot leave. They are shot or sent to a gulag.
Communism is the worst philosophy ever conceived. Its promises are lies and its implemetation is cruelty personified.
The French revolution is an example of what happens with ideologues get control. Heads role by the tens of thousands. The French revolutionaries were just the first example of extremists taking power in the name of socialist ideals. Others include Stalin, Mao, Ho and Pol Pot. In all cases, heads rolled and rolled and rolled. |
I think that should not be the sole reason for communism to collapse. There are a lot of non-communism brutal monarchy countris which did worse but survived longer. For example, Saudi, Indonesia, etc. Even Saddam Would have survived if the US did not invade Iraq. My conclusion is: if the US were not so powerful and at the same time so eager to eliminate communism, commies could have survived.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Show me where the law even claims to make exploitation illegal. Minimum wage is a set wage. It's impossible to set a wage that is not exploitive unless it was so high that there would be no employment. Exploitation is the driving force of capitalism. It's necessary to it's survival.
|
I reject how you define exploitation. Under any dictionary definition, the combination of labour standards, minimum wage and other labour legislation would make REAL exploitation illegal.
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
That's not really what I'm talking about. The system of exploitation is defended by force. I'm not talking about defending people's property, only their right to exploit people.
|
THis is what I don't get. No force is applied to anyone to make them work for a capitalist. Lots of people choose not to work at all and live off of the welfare institutions. Other people own their own business. Its called freedom and I like it.
I know that you will respond that they must work or starve but thats simply not true given available social institutions. . . and they definitely don't need to work for any given capitalist
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Lack of resources prevent me. Not to mention that I'm not the only concern. My concern is for the proletariate as a whole.
|
Oh right the proletariet!! They are busy down at Walmart buying that Gamecube for their children. . .. Seriously . . . your dogma needs some new terms.
But on lack of resources . . I guess it would be impossible for you to work and acquire those resources?? You seem to always assume that a person's condition is fixed. I don't.
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
I see ethnic and other divisions much more of a problem for capitalism. War and nationalism makes sense in an irrational system like capitalism, not communism.
|
Ethnic and national divisions predated capitalism and I find it humerous that you don't address the issue at all. Do people all magically hold hands and sing "kumbiya" on the day of the revolution.
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Of course you do. You want to mainatian the right to exploit because it benefits you personally. |
NO I work for a wage that is less than the value of what I produce. I have no problem with that since I see the other costs associated with my employment. Also I see that benefit that the firm has provided in obtaining large clients in the areas that I work. If my share of what I produce was insufficient I would leave my firm and go elswehere. We are actually currently in salary negotiations and bonuses will soon be paid. It actually a VERY good time.
Right now I employ no one myself.
But I do find that the current system works for me. Why? Because I am in a job that rewards skill and effort. But I believe in the system even when that is not the case like when one of my prior firms folded. I firmly believe that people that work hard will get ahead in the long run. Its a matter of perseverence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xin Yu
I think you should take into account that the Doctor's education was paid by the government. He/she takes less share of the pie to pay back the education cost, which is not so unfair. |
My problem with any "equal pay" type model is that there are certain harder jobs that there will no longer be any incentive to do. Also what financial reason would there be to study something difficult like medicine?
Not all jobs are equally hard.
Even in an office environment there would be less incentive to excell. Personal motivations only go so far.
I believe that most of the communists on here have rejected the equal pay model and have moved toward different but less unequal pay. Of course some communists see pay and currency as unnecessary
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
Gepap quote:
Corporations are very new devices (only about 400 years old), and what you speak of needs currency to even be a possiblity, and currency itself was invented about 3000 years ago tops. |
It doesn't matter when corporations came into existence, and currency is not 3000 years old. Currency existed for eons before the advent of "money" in the form of gold, silver, or some other valued commodity. Implicit in the word is "current" connoting a currently valued commodity, just because we recognise coins/paper today as having value does not mean people 8.000 years ago did not have what to them was a currently agreed upon ~universally valued commodity.
Maybe you're thinking of coinage...
quote:
A, NO, its not just that. There is a massive difference between a capitalist and an indentured farmer capable of going to market to trade his chicken for a hammer. |
I say free people and you say no because of indentured farmers?
quote:
So for capitalism you need the concept of capital, and that concept is relatively current in the history of man. |
Where did you hear the concept of "capital" is ~new? No, capital is very old as well:
Capital - Wealth in the form of money or property, used or accumulated in a business by a person, partnership, or corporation.
Material wealth used or available for use in the production of more wealth.
Capital was born the first time someone produced more than they could use so they sold off the surplus to expand their production. Think of a guy mining iron ore, exchanging it for land or mining equipment to expand his operation. Change the product to cows and dairy products and you can easily see a farmer selling extra cheese/milk to buy more cows and expand.
UR quote:
Not quite. People in ancient societies were also free to exchange their goods, e.g. China. Would you say, hm, the Qin Dynasty was capitalistic? |
From indentured farmers to dynastic China? You guys couldn't just address what I said? If they were free to exchange their goods, then that was a capitalistic system.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
This disproves altruism how?
|
It means that the notion of selflessness is non-existent in the social sense, and that the "self" (for want of a better term" is always at a fundamental level, primary.
quote:
Because the supposition that alutrism doesn't exist is used as a proof that a society of sharing and rational planning can't exist either. Of course, this ignores the fact that choosing socialism is a self-interested act, as well as one for the benefit of others.
|
Good point. It doesn't disprove socialist economics, rather it says it is contextual... something to be picked up when the economic situation demands it and abandoned when the economy picks up. This hardly warrents die-hard advocacy.
quote:
I'm not talking about the unconsciousness. It exists in the consciousness.
|
I am talking about the unconsciousness. Our view of ourselves is not the same as others' view of us, or even our view of ourselves in the "retrospectoscope".
quote:
The idea that you are the only important thing in the universe is wrong.
|
How delightfully innocent!
quote:
The truth is that they universe as a whole is important. So it's not delusional when a person realizes that. When they can not realize it, that's when they are delusional. The problem is that they can't see the forest from the trees.
|
And of what is the universe comprised as far as we are concerned? And how do we view it? Do you think we can have an objective, categorical view of the universe (noumena) or that our view depends on our own subjective perceptions (phenomena). Your nice little tautologies are really just a shortcut to thinking, try harder.
quote:
It's not that at all. Whenever someone has such a warped view of the universe it will always draw attention. You're making a fool out of yourself.
|
Warped view = disagree with yours? This is a debate that has been raging for centuries involving minds far greater than you or I, so forgive me if I doubt that you have solved it, and solved it in an obvious manner with ridiculous profundities. Read Kant, Nietzsche and Wittgenstein and then feel you have something to say. 
quote:
You can have a democratic communism.
|
How exactly? How does that *not* revert to national socialism?
quote:
Of course you have to comply, just like in a capitalist system. You have to comply to survive. However, people shouldn't be shot for exercising free speech or freedom of association. No one here believes that they should be. You really need to understand that.
|
Superficial, sure I happen to agree with that, but we have different mechanisms behind the word "should". I ask you to clarify yours.
quote:
Actually natural selection does not require stronger individuals to kill weaker individuals. The weaker individuals die off because they have been denied resources.
|
Capitalist communism  .
quote:
Welfare isn't all that you think it is, and that's putting it mildly. Work is a need. Welfare recipients are still denied all of their needs being met until they have a job.
|
WTF? If you take society and the requirement to function in it as given, the money is the need, balanced by other factors, but money is "what makes the world go round". If your logic was correct, crime would be a non-issue, as would people seeking new jobs.
quote:
They simple don't compete for resources anymore, which means that their babies aren't eaten by the evil capitalists anymore.
|
But people will always want more... your tellytubbies utopia would break down after 10 minutes!
quote:
You believe that people who work hard get ahead because you have gotten ahead. You really don't know about the other people. You just make an assumption that helps you see yourself in a good light.
|
You're sounding increasingly tenuous and defensively dismissive, both of my arguments and those of other people. I suggest you either take a break or learn to concede in the face of superior reasoning.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
From what I've read, he's also summed up your philosophy. |
Minus the exploitation part.
quote:
It seems you guys not only aren't on the same page with respect to communism, you're not even reading the same book. |
Would you rather we march in lock-step and all argue as if we were one person? I see the fact that we have differences as health, even if Kid and Odin are wrong when they disagree with me. |
Minus the exploitation part? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're defining exploitation as the non-laboring owner of capital taking a share of the profits of production. I seem to recall Odin stating that he was a non-Marxist and approved of "co-ops and syndicates" running in certain industries.
And you don't need to march in lock-step and argue as if you were one person, but it might be a start if you could agree what communism is other than "it's better than capitalism" and "there's no exploitation". You, Kid, Odin, Spiffor and I'm sure many others disagree on what the fundamental tenets of communism are. People like me, Floyd or Flubber and even you have no disagreements on what capitalism is - it's an economic system where private owners of capital produce goods produce goods for exchange-value. We may disagree on finer details like taxes, regulations or government programs, but there is precisely zero dispute over private ownership of capital and discrepancies in income.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
There is as much variety among Commies than among capitalists. Both you and Floyd are capitalists, yet you don't see us using the argument "but Floyd said something different! You capis are really never on the same page" |
See above. Floyd and I don't disagree at all on what constitutes capitalism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
No. Neither one of us wants an exploitive system. We have other differenses. |
I'm sure you don't. The problem is you seem to be defining exploitation differently, just like you and I do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
People like me, Floyd or Flubber and even you have no disagreements on what capitalism is - it's an economic system where private owners of capital produce goods produce goods for exchange-value. |
Unless you're a libertarian, there is a fundimental disagreement with them over what capitalism is. For them, it's the free market, plus private property with no government interference. They would reject certain basic premises, such as capitalism being inherently violent, the cause of wars, etc. while most people would recognize the latter at the least, and when shown sufficient evidence, at least agree that the former has been true at times (if not fully agreeing with it in order to avoid drawing the logical conclusions resulting).
One of the reasons why commies tend to disagree is that communism is still theoretical at this point, despite the various experiments in trying to bring it about. It's easy to agree about what exists. It's much harder to agree about what should/may/will exist. In addition, we can draw different conclusions about the lessons of history. Spiffor and Odin are basically Social Democrats (as am I in a practical sense). Kid is close to what is called a council communist. I'm a Trotskyist (at least as regards theory), which is to say a Marxist-Leninist who rejects Stalinism. Serb, Vagabond, and others are Stalinists.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-01-2005 01:08
|