Left-wing discussion

[Dude_Doc]

IF they vote to return to capitalism, Dude_Doc. IF.

Look. There is no such thing as "the people" in our world. The world will never be united as one. Maybe in peace, yes, in exploring the universe and science. But not politics. People are affraid of every system, I know. Every system, from the Roman Empire, to this very day, has all been corrupted in one way or another. People will eventually realise that it doesn't matter which system they choose, because someone will always be on top of them. Which brings us to the future. And not only the future, but also our instincts as human bodies (a little hard to explain, let's say "the body's will", not the souls). People will realise that life is only a battle of survival. The world is a cruel place, yes, I know. Of course everybody would want your communist utopia, even me, if they only knew, and was guaranteed that they really had the power to control the country, and the human as one. But look at the bright side: there is a heaven :) .

[nampigai]

Edric, do you really in you wildest imagination believe that communism will ever be a reality.

Of course. Just like 18th century thinkers believed that democracy would one day be a reality.

Think outside the box, Namp...

Nothing can last forever. Sooner or later, capitalism will fall. What comes after that is completely up to us. Despite what capitalist propaganda tells you, communism is very much possible and feasible. And it is the best economical system that humans have invented so far. So why NOT communism?

imo one word: Greed!

[Edric O]

imo one word: Greed!

Namp, do you really think that in 150 years of communist history, no one thought about greed before?

In communism, greed will work for us, not against us. People can achieve much more by working together than if everyone was on his own. Therefore, each person will realize that he has much more to gain if he helps communism to work properly than if he tries to sabotage it. And we won't have another Stalin, because the people will be educated enough to simply ignore someone like that. The only reason Stalin managed to gain absolute power was because the ordinary Russian was used to having a Tsar.

Dude_Doc:

Look. There is no such thing as "the people" in our world. The world will never be united as one. Maybe in peace, yes, in exploring the universe and science. But not politics. People are affraid of every system, I know.

WHAT are you talking about? First of all, there's no need for the entire world to be united. Separate countries will do just fine. Second of all, saying that there's no such thing as "the people" makes no sense whatsoever. OF COURSE there are people in the world! What do you think we are?

As for being united as one, who ever said that such a thing would be necessary?? We don't need to be "united as one" to vote, do we? We don't need to be "united as one" to have jobs and work with other people, do we?

And if people were afraid of politics, they would have never invented it. Politicians are people too, you know.

Every system, from the Roman Empire, to this very day, has all been corrupted in one way or another.

That's because they were BUILT that way. What you call "corruption" was business as usual to them.

People will eventually realise that it doesn't matter which system they choose, because someone will always be on top of them.

Proof, please? You've just made an extreme generalisation without any proof whatsoever.

Not only that, but you utterly ignore the massive differences between our society and ancient or medieval society. Are you saying that the abolition of slavery and serfdom didn't make any difference?? ::)

For 5000 years, people have been getting more and more freedom and equality. These two things determine the evolution of human civilization. Freedom and equality. Today, we have more freedom and more equality than ever before. And the trend continues. We are still not completely free and equal, but we are more so than our ancestors. A thousand years from now, people will say the same thing about themselves in comparison to us. For five thousand years of human history, we have followed the path of freedom and equality - the path that leads to communism.

Why should we stop now, when we are so close?

[Caid Ivik]

Greed works against us? I would say that today everyone works for some greed, to be sure, it is a sense of work. Some people work for God or their own pleasure, but most work primarily for money. Thoughts of higher wages haste people to work with more enthusiasm and effectivity. Without binds of strict production limits, just for customers. Maximum effectivity and feeling of victory with every bonus crown...

About the people on top, I will use as prove hippies and early christians, de facto most communistic societies in your view. Christians created something like today's jewish kibucim, but quickly the role of bishop or priest in that community was dominant (like rabbi in kibuc). In hippie movement was also idea of brotherhood and love (well, here with more sexual meaning), but unlike christians fully ignoring external world and rulers. Altough you can say that in extasy of LSD and grass they don't need no leaders, but as you compare i.e.their drug dealer or any guitar player, you see they have much more respect.

Every society has a leader, or will elect one with its evolution. It's not only about humans, see wolves for example. Alternative is a Borg-like unification. But that scares me.

After many years in service, the old engine gets worn out, and a new and better engine is invented. You can still tweak the old engine and make it work a few extra years, but sooner or later you'll have to get the new one.

Well, if the old type is good and reliable, why should we invent new? Also, it isn't best argument, tough unions weren't invented by someone, they were spontaneous. As well as most functional things, like capitalism...

[Dude_Doc]

WHAT are you talking about? First of all, there's no need for the entire world to be united.

I thought you said so, some time ago. Alright, let's move on.

OF COURSE there are people in the world! What do you think we are?

It seems there has been a misunderstanding. I meant that there is no "one people". Yes, there is one mankind, we are all the same as a race regarding skin colour, eyes, hair, length, weight etc. But not as souls, or, each person's "will". Not everybody on Earth wants communism, in another words.

As for being united as one, who ever said that such a thing would be necessary??

You? ???

And if people were afraid of politics, they would have never invented it. Politicians are people too, you know.

Not exactly. People are affraid to do wrong. For the system. If they do wrong in capitalism, they end up in the streets. If they do wrong in communism, they go to jail. If they do wrong in fascism, they die.

That's because they were BUILT that way. What you call "corruption" was business as usual to them.

Then you must be aware that communism follows the same pattern.

Proof, please? You've just made an extreme generalisation without any proof whatsoever.

Just like you always said the CIA ordered the September 11th attacks?

Listen, people "know" that the government controls them. Who put you in jail after Stalin's time? The government. Who forced you to work in some coal mine? The government. Who forced people work in factories, and on dirty airfields (like my grandfather)? The government. People naturally became afraid because this wasn't "our rule". It was "their" rule, the governments.

For 5000 years, people have been getting more and more freedom and equality. These two things determine the evolution of human civilization. Freedom and equality. Today, we have more freedom and more equality than ever before. And the trend continues.

But does that have to mean communism will make the whole thing better? Either communism must exist global, or not at all. Just take a look on China. They are restricted to "look outside their country". And I say that isn't fair.

Why should we stop now, when we are so close?

Then tell me at least when you are going to "begin" again. What messages? Are you going to be a politician when you grow up? When will you start working on this "dream"?

[nampigai]

Edric O not to bash you or anything for you beliefs but I think it's a totally utopia, it can or will never be in my opinion.

if people get the same salary some people will say hey, why should I work hard? and just do a shitty job. And the greed, IMO man will allways do what best for him not his fellow men. This is offcourse only my opinion.

[Dude_Doc]

Yes, I agree with that.

[nemafakei]

On greed: The thing to do is have the system that to get more money, you have to be providing more to society. That is to say, someone working hard at a job they are good at (and a job which benefits others) should be paid more than someone half-trying to doing some near-pointless little job.

Therefore, those who work for the benefit of others will be rewarded, and the greedy will have to benefit others to get money, so their greed is turned to society's advantage.

[Caid Ivik]

People product enough money for themselves and still they can have a "state", which has institutes to care for the unproductive services. We need to support them as well, because without i.e. healthcare, we can't be 100% productive too. Main problem is that state's administrative takes much money as well. I think it can be solved by its minimal contact with those money, which should be flown directly to services, not from state's centre, like presented in socialistic view.

[Edric O]

Caid:

Every society has a leader, or will elect one with its evolution. It's not only about humans, see wolves for example. Alternative is a Borg-like unification. But that scares me.

When did I ever say that we shouldn't have any leaders? All I'm saying is that all those leaders should always be democratically elected, and that they should SERVE the interests of the people rather than RULE over them.

Think of your own examples: the early Christians and their socialist communities, the Jewish kibuc (I think the proper spelling is "kibutz", but I'm not sure), and to some extent even the hippies...

Dude_Doc:

I thought you said so, some time ago. Alright, let's move on.

Yes, I said that it would be a very good thing if the whole world was united... but that has nothing to do with communism. Uniting the world and building communism are two different things.

It seems there has been a misunderstanding. I meant that there is no "one people". Yes, there is one mankind, we are all the same as a race regarding skin colour, eyes, hair, length, weight etc. But not as souls, or, each person's "will". Not everybody on Earth wants communism, in another words.

Then again, not everyone in the world wants capitalism, either. But I see that capitalism is still standing...

You don't need to have everyone's support to make a new system work. You just need the support of the majority.

Then you must be aware that communism follows the same pattern.

What pattern? A beginning, a middle and an end? Of course. Nothing lasts forever, and this includes communism. People will eventually find an even better system and move on to that.

Just like you always said the CIA ordered the September 11th attacks?

That was (and still is) only a theory, and I don't think I ever claimed that it was "THE truth". I don't insist on it, because I know that there is no proof. But enough about this, we already have another topic to cover it.

Listen, people "know" that the government controls them. Who put you in jail after Stalin's time? The government. Who forced you to work in some coal mine? The government. Who forced people work in factories, and on dirty airfields (like my grandfather)? The government. People naturally became afraid because this wasn't "our rule". It was "their" rule, the governments.

If you have a despotic government, then yes, of course. But such an all-powerful government is among the worst enemies of communism. The final aim of communism is to get rid of traditional government altogether, and have the people govern themselves, through "community councils" or something similar.

But does that have to mean communism will make the whole thing better? Either communism must exist global, or not at all. Just take a look on China. They are restricted to "look outside their country". And I say that isn't fair.

China isn't even stalinist any more. Besides having a despotic government, they also have a free market. Even the worst enemies of communism have to admit that a country like China, with its private companies and foreign corporations, has an outright capitalist economy.

And like I said, communism is just the natural result of the 5000 year-old trend towards more freedom and equality.

Then tell me at least when you are going to "begin" again. What messages? Are you going to be a politician when you grow up? When will you start working on this "dream"?

When will I start working on it? First of all, I'm not alone. There are still millions of communists worldwide who share these ideals. Second of all, if you're asking when will I start making my contribution to the struggle for communism, the answer is that I have already started. The one thing that we need above all is to tell people about the true ideals and aims of communism, and to fight against the image of "evil commies" that the capitalists spread about us. This is what I am doing. It is the first step towards the revolution.

[Edric O]

Edric O not to bash you or anything for you beliefs but I think it's a totally utopia, it can or will never be in my opinion.

if people get the same salary some people will say hey, why should I work hard? and just do a shitty job. And the greed, IMO man will allways do what best for him not his fellow men. This is offcourse only my opinion.

Namp, I'm afraid that you are holding a very old misconception about communism, and which is simply not true.

Communism does NOT involve giving everyone the same pay, regardless of the actual work done. Communism is about shared property (in other words, public ownership over the means of production). People who work more (or better) are helping society more, so they also receive more for themselves.

[Caid Ivik]

[quote author=Edric O link=board=34;threadid=10206;start=120#msg184324

When did I ever say that we shouldn't have any leaders? All I'm saying is that all those leaders should always be democratically elected, and that they should SERVE the interests of the people rather than RULE over them.

Think of your own examples: the early Christians and their socialist communities, the Jewish kibuc (I think the proper spelling is "kibutz", but I'm not sure), and to some extent even the hippies...

Serving the interests can be done only by their authority. When they will just came personally to every their citizen, or will just write a law, it is just a detail. But Marx was talking about slow perishing of state. That people will familiarize themselves with the law, so it won't need to be defined in law. This all is utopia.

In kibuc (written as kaf-bet-cade, looks like "y]}") are all working for common treasury, which is then given to all, who made more will have more. Maybe ten families in the kibuc, including nonworking rabi, which is leader ruling by the word of God, will be payed like a kibuc's employees. Kibuc must pay taxes, and when someone is very ill, he must leave the kibuc and go to hospital. Also, if kibuc is attacked by Hamas, it is investigated by state's police authority.

[Dude_Doc]

What pattern? A beginning, a middle and an end? Of course. Nothing lasts forever, and this includes communism. People will eventually find an even better system and move on to that.

No - the pattern of corruption. As most human things in politics do.

If you have a despotic government, then yes, of course. But such an all-powerful government is among the worst enemies of communism. The final aim of communism is to get rid of traditional government altogether, and have the people govern themselves, through "community councils" or something similar.

Which is what I meant by "higher power". That there is always (and yes, I have no proof, but I believe so in a perspective) someone, or some group, who don't want people to become equal, or live by "community councils". Tell me the real difference from now and 500 years ago. Sure, we gained more freedom. Ord did we? Actually, what we called "slavery" and "bondage" 500 years ago, we call "money" and "greed" with today. Instead of doing work for our masters, we pay them. Even you know this. Take a real good look at the world and tell me what freedom we really gained in all this time.

China isn't even stalinist any more. Besides having a despotic government, they also have a free market. Even the worst enemies of communism have to admit that a country like China, with its private companies and foreign corporations, has an outright capitalist economy.

But that isn't the point. The point is that a new generation of people will be born inside communism, and learn greed and disorder when they look outside of the borders in the communist land they were born in. That's why corruption occur.

When will I start working on it? First of all, I'm not alone. There are still millions of communists worldwide who share these ideals.

Well, they have been there for some time now. When? Anytime soon? In our lifetime? Ever? Etc.

[nemafakei]

Ok, this is really when people need to start specifying what they mean. At the moment, it seems that no two people mean the same thing by any given ideology.

[Edric O]

Nema, what are you talking about? It looks to me that we're all talking about the same things...

Caid, what Marx was talking about is in fact a system very similar to your description of a kibuc, except that the leader(s), if they are needed at all, will be elected by the community members. And, of course, hospitals and other facilities will be a part of the community, not something outside it. But those are minor differences, so the kibuc is a very good example of a working communist system.

Dude_Doc:

No - the pattern of corruption. As most human things in politics do.

The pattern of corruption forms the last half of the beginning-middle-end development of any social system. Corruption is the reason why systems don't just "freeze" in the stage of maximum prosperity in the middle of their lifetime.

Which is what I meant by "higher power". That there is always (and yes, I have no proof, but I believe so in a perspective) someone, or some group, who don't want people to become equal, or live by "community councils". Tell me the real difference from now and 500 years ago. Sure, we gained more freedom. Ord did we? Actually, what we called "slavery" and "bondage" 500 years ago, we call "money" and "greed" with today. Instead of doing work for our masters, we pay them. Even you know this. Take a real good look at the world and tell me what freedom we really gained in all this time.

See, this is one of the dangers of not knowing enough history. You have the impression that nothing has changed, and the great past victories of the people in their struggle for freedom and equality are forgotten.

A LOT has changed in 500 years, Dude_Doc. You have more freedom than your ancestors could have ever dreamed of. Let me just name all the freedoms that we have today and that didn't exist 500 years ago:

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of movement (the vast majority of people 500 years ago were serfs, and they were forced to live their entire life in the same house and on the same land as their parents), freedom to pursue the career of your choice, freedom to choose (elect) your leaders, freedom to sue your leaders in court, etc.

As for equality, just think about this: 500 years ago, society was organized into rigid castes, and your entire life was determined by who your parents were. Also, the aristocracy had unquestioned authority, and their word was law. A nobleman could simply kill you because he felt like it.

But today we have written law and written constitutions. All people, both rich and poor, are equal before the law. There are no more rigid castes, and you are not forced to live the exact same lifestyle as your parents.

Of course, people are still not completely free, and still not completely equal (just look at the huge income gap between rich and poor). But we are far more free and equal then our ancestors ever were.

And yes, there ARE forces at work who wish to destroy freedom and equality. But for 5000 years, we kept beating them back. And we have to keep beating them back, until the time when we can deliver the final blow.

But that isn't the point. The point is that a new generation of people will be born inside communism, and learn greed and disorder when they look outside of the borders in the communist land they were born in. That's why corruption occur.

By this logic, early capitalism should have been corrupted by all the feudalist countries around it. But that never happened, because people living in capitalism saw that they were doing much better than their feudalist neighbors. In the same way, the first people living in communism will see that they are doing much better than their capitalist neighbors. So communism will endure, and it will grow.

Well, they have been there for some time now. When? Anytime soon? In our lifetime? Ever? Etc.

I can't predict the future, Dude_Doc. But I must remind you that communism is still recovering from the massive blows of the 20th century. The treason of Stalin, World War 2, and then the spread of stalinist dictatorships - these things prevented the victory of communism from happening in the 20th century. But we were close, so damn close! Now we're pretty much back to where we were in the early 1900's.

First we must recover our numbers and strength. Then we must look at whatever political situation will be in the world at that time and see what we can do.

As for me personally, I intend to get into politics and help my comrades as much as I can.

[Dude_Doc]

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of movement (the vast majority of people 500 years ago were serfs, and they were forced to live their entire life in the same house and on the same land as their parents), freedom to pursue the career of your choice, freedom to choose (elect) your leaders, freedom to sue your leaders in court, etc.

Can we really? You mentioned it yourself - if we want to sue an important person, or make a deal with, say, the music industry about the problem of P2P (internet sharing), we can't. Just like you claimed Bush came to power trough corporations. Yes, we have gained a so called "official freedom", but just like you said - is there really a difference in the parties or leaders we elect?

And yes, there ARE forces at work who wish to destroy freedom and equality. But for 5000 years, we kept beating them back. And we have to keep beating them back, until the time when we can deliver the final blow.

Final blow? If there will ever be a final blow. You said we had freedom to movement, but in the real case, we haven't. If they see your movement as a treath, they will put it down. And people won't know about it. That's the biggest problem. Free information.

In the same way, the first people living in communism will see that they are doing much better than their capitalist neighbors. So communism will endure, and it will grow.

It is different now. Communism have already existed. You didn't see people returning to feudalism, for example.

As for me personally, I intend to get into politics and help my comrades as much as I can.

I'll take that as an answer.

[Caid Ivik]

Caid, what Marx was talking about is in fact a system very similar to your description of a kibuc, except that the leader(s), if they are needed at all, will be elected by the community members. And, of course, hospitals and other facilities will be a part of the community, not something outside it. But those are minor differences, so the kibuc is a very good example of a working communist system.

Hm, you've missed the main point: kibuc has about 10-50 members. Wonder why Israel as a state is a normal state, and only 2% of population lives in kibucim. Altough here you've also negated the point that state will perish, here you can see, that full sharing can't cross the borders of a family.

[Acriku]

I wanna ask a communism question. What was the difference between Stalin's form of communism and the communism you follow?

[Edric O]

Acriku, there is one big difference between them:

In stalinism, the state (or, to be more exact, the "communist" party) had absolute power, and the people were forced to obey it.

In communism, the people have full control over the state, through democratic processes. Therefore, the state only serves the interests of the people. And this causes the state to slowly wither away, as the people get used to having all the power in their own hands. The final form of communism is a system in which "the state" (as we know it) no longer exists, because the people live in free communities and govern themselves (in other words, there is direct democracy).

[Edric O]

Caid:

Hm, you've missed the main point: kibuc has about 10-50 members. Wonder why Israel as a state is a normal state, and only 2% of population lives in kibucim. Altough here you've also negated the point that state will perish, here you can see, that full sharing can't cross the borders of a family.

The reason why I "missed" that main point was because you never mentioned it before...

But as you have said yourself, a kibuc is only ONE example of a working communist system. What about early Christian communities, or the Inca villages in the Andes, or the Paris Commune, or even the hippies? They all had much more than just 10-50 people in a community!

And, of course, there's also the fact that it will probably take hundreds of years to reach the final stage of communism. Something that seems "utopian" right now can easily become everyday life 500 years in the future.

But even if that final stage cannot be reached, we can just stop somewhere along the way, and we'll still end up with a system that is much better than capitalism.

Dude_Doc:

Can we really? You mentioned it yourself - if we want to sue an important person, or make a deal with, say, the music industry about the problem of P2P (internet sharing), we can't. Just like you claimed Bush came to power trough corporations. Yes, we have gained a so called "official freedom", but just like you said - is there really a difference in the parties or leaders we elect?

Final blow? If there will ever be a final blow. You said we had freedom to movement, but in the real case, we haven't. If they see your movement as a treath, they will put it down. And people won't know about it. That's the biggest problem. Free information.

Yes, this is where the fact that people are still not completely free and equal comes in. You have just mentioned some of the evils of capitalism. And like you said, these are things that I talk about all the time: the rich buying themselves a better life at the expense of the poor, corporations putting their own puppets in positions of power, capitalist propaganda, etc.

Indeed, capitalism is bad. Very bad. But the point is that the systems which came before it were even worse. MUCH worse. Therefore, although capitalism itself is the cause of a lot of injustice and suffering, it's a big improvement over feudalism.

Things are better than before, but they're still not nearly as they should be (and could be). This is the reason why we must continue the struggle, and push forward in the fight for freedom and equality.

It is different now. Communism have already existed.

No it hasn't. We only had a bunch of stalinist dictatorships who pretended to be communist. But more and more people are finally starting to realize that stalinism was not communism, and this trend is very encouraging.

[Dude_Doc]

And, of course, there's also the fact that it will probably take hundreds of years to reach the final stage of communism. Something that seems "utopian" right now can easily become everyday life 500 years in the future.

It is funny. Utopia. God created Eden for us, or, Utopia. We misused it. Now, we get to pay for our sins. This world is it. Anyways, just a sidenote...

The final form of communism is a system in which "the state" (as we know it) no longer exists, because the people live in free communities and govern themselves (in other words, there is direct democracy).

It sounds more anarchistic to me. Who will control the laws? Or - will there be laws? Will there be police? How can you ensure that every person is happy? The whole question is not just political, there is much hate inside of us.

In other words, there must be a law. There must be someone to govern the people, but not with powers to build himself a terror-regime. Democracy offers all this, what I can see.

I mean, people (inside and general), are anarchistic. But without the state, civilization as we know it will plumber in such phase you could call it overnight.

[Edric O]

Like I said, it will take hundreds of years for people to learn to govern themselves. But if this final stage of communism proves to be impossible, we can always just stop somewhere along the way, in a system where government still exists, but it is under the complete control of the people. And even though this system will not be absolutely perfect, it will be vastly superior to capitalism.

[Caid Ivik]

What are you talking about? Those are humans, people, who are in government. Communists must have roots in India to consider such stratification of society. Oh my God, you should be here in Slovakia before about seven years, when we were ruled by Meciar, nationalists and one real worker party, as you can see, anybody can reach the government! Under full control of other people: when we were enough disgusted, in 1998 we've elected fully new band.

Christian communities were of same size as kibucim, saying that Inca villages are communistic is also funny (mention that these people were killing children, when they were over limit). I've said before there are only few families in every such societies. But anyway, I am glad to see we've returned to point, and that's the authority question, which is visible in any of your "utopical" mini-societies.

[Edric O]

Are you saying that capitalist society is NOT stratified? So the child of a billionnaire with 5 luxury houses, 7 expensive cars, and 2 private helicopters has the same chances in life as a child born on the street? ::)

Wake up to reality, Caid!

I'm sure that almost anybody could get to be part of the government of Slovakia, or Romania, or some other unimportant country. But what about the government of the United States, or Britain, or Russia? You need to invest millions of dollars in your election campaign if you want to have the slightest chance of being elected.

As for Christian communities, the fact is that no one knows how big they were, so don't pretend that you do.

And it's really funny how you try to throw mud at the idea of communist society by talking about Inca child sacrifices, when these were in fact part of an annual religious ceremony called Capacocha. What do religious rituals have to do with the economic organization of their villages?

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Next thing, he'll be adding the 'Holocaust' and the 'Gas Chambers' into his mud slinging towards Communism.

And if I take a look at Europe and America, I can see Fasiscm with a sprinkle of Democracy.

Vote comrade!!!!

But remember the additional rules of the 'game'

Your party must have 90% of the majority(cough cough)

And a Politician's vote is worth 1 million civilian votes.

The result is.... awwwww we won because all our politicians voted and we are more important than civilians not to mention the 'euro' is 'very' profitable to us. So better luck next time! Try to go for the 100%

Case closed!!!

Next day, the majority of the people votes 100%

"Ummm, erhhhh, all of our politicians voted against, so... we errr won again! Case closed !! ::)

*Vote booths closes*