PreteenCommunist - ask me anything ^.^

Sure, I mean non-linear time is as good as proven. I don't think it would even be compatible with relativity (dimensions are not tensed), not to mention results from delayed-choice and so on. But I think you're speculating a bit much. Maybe people just realised that they were (*)(*)(*)(*)ing up the planet.

 

None, inherently. It all depends on what time period and what level of productive force development you're talking about; I would have been an ardent capitalist had I been in 18th-century Europe. At the moment, in a stage of near-overabundance, a transition into communism would develop productive forces much faster and more sustainably than capitalism currently does and would have greater productive and allocative efficiency in terms of adequately providing for everyone's needs in a sustainable, proportionate and easily controlled manner.

- - - Updated - - -

Just because I mentioned the state controlling something in a transitional period? Surely the character of a state determines whether it is an Ingsoc-type phenomenon, not the mere existence of one?

 

I'm not going to deny the immense progress and the necessity of capitalist society. But if its ability to provide for people has been overrun, is it not time to look for a new system which can provide with greater efficacy given the conditions we are in? And anyway, the problem is more than just numbers; how come capitalism can "afford" to waste millions of tonnes of food and millions of people's energy on useless and ridiculous trinkets, money-spinning schemes and swanky crap for the rich while people are starving? That's not overpopulation, that's plain distributive inefficiency.

Absolutely; oh and I hate the kind of synthetic junk brands like Heinz churn out with fifty obscure chemicals in every ingredient list. It's barely edible.

 

The present era.

One can be a victim of ones own success which is something that has been demonstrated time and again.

 

What do you mean?

 

An example of what I'm trying to say is the island of Nauru which was able to look after its people purely from the sale of phosphates.
During that time the overall standard of living was good but this dropped when the government lost its revenue from those sales due to those phosphates being exhausted.
So even when a communist style society comes into being its still reliant on limited resources and doesn't encourage flexibility.

 

What mechanism would ensure that consumer preferences are best satisfied?

 

Basically, what I mean by elite is the fact that there will always be someone who is standing above everybody else. Even in Arthur's round table, he was the king, and his word had more sway than someone else's. It doesn't, of course, have to be a king, or a despot, or a Stalin, it can be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a scientist. What is our elite? Is it a political elite? Is it a social elite? What do we value? Why don't we think that being a janitor is a valuable career? See, nowadays, we inject our values into our economy. Because, just like everything else in a capitalist economy, everything we have is based on supply and demand. Why do we value a decent drummer? Because there aren't a lot of people who can play the drums really well and we enjoy music. In this sense, we have crafted our own, non-political elite. And these "elites" drive society. I know communists don't really talk about human nature, but it's because of human nature that, at least in my opinion, communism hasn't worked too well. Let me put it to you this way.

Socialism: We will help you

Communism: We will help us

Capitalism: I will help me

Fascism: You will help us

Anarchy: Just do whatever

In any of these situations, someone will always have it better than someone else. In a socialistic society, it assumes that someone is already richer than someone else. Which is why it feeds off of the fact that someone has to be better than someone else. Which is why its a very destructive ideology. Fascism has the individual help the group, but there will always be someone telling the individual what to do. Communism has the group autonomously help the group, but someone may have a little more power than someone else. If its an anarcho communism, then someone may amass more resources than someone else because no one will tell them not to, which would lead to someone with more power than someone else. If its authoritarian communism, then you have a Stalin. So, because humans innately want to help themselves first, they would rather see themselves rich before they see everyone around them have the same as them. Its just simple competition, that doesn't even have to do with the economy. Capitalism feeds off of this competition and makes everyone fend for themselves with no regard for one another, on the off chance that someone will help out someone else. Which is what gives both systems their issues.

I know this may be a convoluted response, but have pity, holiday ends in like a couple days for me, so....and plus, i'd have to go through this whole huge explanation.

 

That is not true, communist Countries have always operated under conditions of scarcity of items of primary consumption, of clothing, tools, medicine etc..... Keep people on the brink of starvation and you have people that are tractable and accepting of less than ideal situations.

 

Lawmakers and executives in my bourgeois state are elected, and workers and even worthless bums on the street have just as big a vote on them as I or any billionaire does.

Some people don't want to harness anything but their mule to plow fields, grow crops, and raise chickens. It really, really bothers me that you don't seem to respect their decision. It's their life. It's my life. Leave us alone.

You know what the essence of evil really is, putting aside your dismissal qua materialist of the concept? It's control of other people.

 

No, you speak like an Ivory tower Princess, you have not traveled as far as I have and seen the things I have seen, or lived as long as I have, you speak of things without having actually experienced them, if you had lived through a communist regime, you would sing a different tune.

 

Yes...... a significant percentage of us are finally realizing that we are messing up the planet..........
but 99.9% don't realize how badly!


http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...long-term-effects-climate-change-logical.html
Is this analysis of the probable long term effects of climate change logical?

I believe that the following statements are logical and accurate!

I think that we desperately need to make some serious changes.

Thread: Ignorance shown in my 2008 campaign, my apology to Ms. Elizabeth May!

One of the most important questions that we are facing is how to FINANCE those alterations in our economy?

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...eform-our-unsustainable-financial-system.html
How can we now reform our unsustainable financial system?

Is John Hotson Ph. D. correct in the following assertion?

http://www.mailstar.net/money.html

 

Not speculative...factual.

AA

 

Commie,




Would you consider voting Republican?

 

I decided I'd just address this in this thread. So how to finance a switch to our economy to accommodate a more greener outlook? Hmmmm...interesting dilemma. Because, in the long run, have renewable, autarkical, resources is more economically efficient. But the short term investment takes a large toll to an already non-renewable dependent society. Well, it would get easier the further in we go, but I suppose that you just have to switch over one building at a time.

On a somewhat similar note, I think a huge problem that we have in the whole world is water and access to fresh water. Now, hydroelectric power is a form of renewable energy. The United States and Canada both border two huge oceans teeming with water. We know how to distill saltwater from the ocean and turn it into drinkable water. And we also know how to make self-sustaining water mills. Now, the process of distilling water involves evaporation and condensation that would leave behind the salt and other minerals, and give you the fresh water. So I'm thinking that we build along our two coasts huge water plants that utilize ocean waves to generate hydro power and then distill the water for drinking. It's not like we're going to bring down the sea levels of the Pacific or the Atlantic, and honestly, with melting glaciers, we probably should, but enough water flows back into the ocean that we'd have a pretty self-sustaining system not dependent on non-renewable energy.

 

You can't possibly be talking to me?

AA

 

No. To Commie.

You can, however, answer if you wish.

 

If, as Marx said, communism is inevitable, then why do we need a Revolution?

And as corollary to that, what do you think of the the idea that we have actually gained at least the first stage of a communistic system now? We only have to eliminate certain massive delusions, such as the existence of real money.

 

Ok, before I start the replies: I've actually been questioning Marxism a fair bit lately and dabbling in other things to see if there's anything better out there, mostly because I've been a Marxist for two and a half years (a long time for a 15-year-old) and I'm getting bored. Although I doubt I'll ever be as passionate about and interested in any ideology as I was about Marxism when I was 12. So yeah, my heart isn't really in it anymore and my replies might not be convincing.

The point is that we have a transitional period with correspondingly transitional allocative mechanisms (essentially money which cannot be accumulated as profit or exchanged more than once, along with economic planning) which will lay the foundations for a post-scarcity society while at the same time adapting to the conditions caused by the last vestiges of scarcity.

 

I don't think there is a single mechanism; such a large task requires a holistic solution. The best thing we could do would be to ensure that both production and allocation satisfy consumer preference and integrate the two together, which would admittedly be easier with a planned economy where "externalities" and purchasing power disparities are no problem.

 

So an élite is a layer/stratum/whatever the frick at the top of any given hierarchy?

In that case, that would still exist in communism in the sense of some people having the opportunity to play a managing role in certain tasks and some people being thought of as the "best" at a certain thing. What would not exist in communism is the state, or any sort of coercive, permanent hierarchy.

I don't know what it is about the US and labelling social democracy as "socialism", but I feel like you're thinking of social democracy. If you're thinking of a society which is essentially capitalism with a lot of state economic intervention, redistribution and a huge welfare state, that's social democracy. And sure, that's destructive because having a great big deficit and double-figure unemployment is destructive, but it has little to do with socialism except that we sometimes go to the same protest rallies.

The only reason someone might have more power - in the coercive sense - than someone else in communism is if this "communism" went wrong along the line. This applies to both "authoritarian" (Marxist) and anarchist varieties, since they have the same end goals.

Maybe people want the best for themselves first, but there is nothing supra-capitalist about people being pitted against each other and everyone's "worth" being quantified in a completely inaccurate and damaging manner. In communism, it would be utterly impossible to quantify whether one person has "more" than another, because everyone would just be pursuing their desires. And no one would lose out from that, or know what they were missing.

 

Yeah, no, in practice such regimes were not communist.

I'm really sick of this debate at this point.

 

Yes, but the whole state and economic apparatus is built to perpetuate capitalism and thus isn't in workers'.

Undoubtedly there were people like that during the bourgeois revolutions too, and the revolutions went ahead anyway. There were probably peasants in France in 1789 who couldn't care less whether the monarchy was going to be kicked out and wanted to be left alone but got swept up in it all. That's just what happens with revolutionary politics.

I didn't know you were an anarchist.

- - - Updated - - -

Some proof would be nice in that case. Proof which controls all the variables (good luck with that).

- - - Updated - - -

Leaving aside that I'm not American and not old enough to vote...why would I do that?

 

He didn't say that; he said the end/destruction/implosion of capitalism was inevitable. What happens after that totally depends on whether the revolution goes ahead.

Well the sharing economy certainly contributes to that, but production relations are still well and truly capitalist, and as exploitative as ever. What we're seeing now is a string of desperate attempts to save capitalism from tearing itself apart, which alter its character a bit to adapt to pre-communist changes in productive forces, but cannot make the fundamental changes which are increasingly necessary.

 

Madam Preteen, it's the first I've seen this forum you made. And we've interacted from time to time, it's sad to see that politics has sapped much a great deal of enthusiasm from you but it's entirely understandable. Like you, I had dabbled into politics at a very young age(9 years old). Unlike you however, being in the US, it was a complete accident. For me, my grandmother had mentioned the name "Bill Clinton" and me, being ever curious looked it up. And so for no rhyme or reason, I had become a Liberal.

And I honestly thought that I had Liberal or Left leanings, certainly on helping out other people and wanting a better life for them. I always thought that, especially in a non-political context of things. I think it's simply humane to help out a brother or sister in need. But perhaps in what I didn't know would be a political game changing moment for me, I had my one and only visit with extended family members when I was 12 and I met a Bush supporter.

I told him there was no way I could support the Bush Administration and outlined my reasons why. And then he said something that today, rings prophetic: He said that I was far more conservative than I was Liberal. As a Fascist-Technocrat, we can both admit that man was right. But I was stunned at the time. So don't worry if your political views change in time, the thesis you came to wasn't flawed. It merely evolved.

So-called a "sin" in politics, because a politician must be "honest" which means that our views "must never change". But this ignores philosophy(as I'm sure you're aware.) Philosophy is ever changing, because it's growing. Plato's Republic was a template, it was a template on which later philosophers built. Fascism for me was a philosophy and I built off of it, with the merger of Technocracy as I believed both philosophies to complement each other.

The two isolated philosophies of the 19th century, were the missing link of each other. Fascism successfully united the State in a concept of a one-for-all, all-for-one concept. But unlike Communism, it did not dissolve the Individual, but rather incorporated the individual into the State model. In my reading of Fascism and understanding Mussolini's words, I feel as though Hail should switch Fascism/Communism.

It is Communism that ignores the individual, nay, it must ignore the individual otherwise the Stateless society cannot be held. A society is typically built of individuals, and one cannot subjugate their own individuality.

But even if you could subjugate your own individuality, you wouldn't want to. Because it would otherwise devalue your own talents and capabilities. This is why Communism cannot work. The Stateless Society is also a individual-less society. One may very well have a country without a government, but it cannot be a country without rules and it cannot be a country without values. All of which are valued by individuals.

Communism then, was an imperfect theory that was waiting for Fascism to be the true correction. I hold that it was Communism/Democracy(as Mussolini said) in the last century that had its era, and has since ended. Only the victorious powers of WWII, and the political belief that resided in our countries gave democracy an extended breath.

But when 20th century European politics finds its home in America as we've witnessed, that should signal the final and complete death of democracy. There may well be a Hillary Clinton today, but it changes little in the grand scheme of things.

How to evolve Fascism? As I said, I incorporated a Technocratic view, which suggests that first and foremost the ideology of the State is the well-being of its people, and the utilization of political energies for this purpose. As I said: An Ant colony, to optimize the capabilities of every American.

It's a hierarchy that, within the hierarchy allows a "controlled freedom" that enables controlled results. If we use our energies constructively, and positively the skies are the limits. But if that energy is used on crime, warfare, etc then it's wasted. As the former leaders of revolutionary movements can attest to in their graves.

Mussolini's grand mistake was the utilization of spirit for violence. No, I can generate the spiritual will of politics in infrastructure, in building. Not just physical things, but obviously the relationships between people as stressed in those European empires of their time. And when all of these things are built, a society can only go further and higher up.

A centralized leadership at the time, with the right amount of control and freedom can enable the mix that will allow us to reach our potential. I believe the same in the economy. A mixed economy. I'm willing to participate in trade, but only if we lower deficits and if we have an acceptable "ratio" of items/jobs sent in and out. This should be the goal for all nations.

When everyone's economy is protected, there will never be a recession again. The global crisis happened because the world as a whole was hapless. It's therefore imperative to protect it. Protections need not be a burden, but an asset to keep our system afloat. Because a system means nothing if it breaks tomorrow.

But I admire both Hail and yourself. I feel as though the youth must and should be involved. And you both are involved the same way I was. Radicals taking a daring path, demanding change and not just meekly asking for it. Because our older generations have kicked the can, and still have interest in kicking the can.

But it's also because of the necessity of the era, and the resistance to change that the call for change becomes all the more imperative, the wall becomes irritating and the raw emotionalism forces one to be drawn out in politics. I'm also worn out in many cases. I'm worn out in America with our big money politics, and the complications of planning a House run in 2018, which I most definitely want to do.

So it's fine to take a break. It's even better still if you decide this isn't for you. It's okay. You have the knowledge to be a knowledgable voter, that's more than I can say for most of the West. It's better to take that intelligence you both have, and apply it to your careers. I'd rather you do that, then to have your souls destroyed by this ruthless game called politics.

But I must go on, I love politics, despite all of its worts. .