PreteenCommunist - ask me anything ^.^

Ok well, for the first point, that is exactly the problem. Because it defeats the purpose of having zero social class. If someone has a managerial position but everyone is the same, then we have a major contradiction. And so people in managerial positions tend to take more of the pie than they should. Leading to a Stalin problem. Or they end up a Mao. It's not like it's any better in capitalism, because people who have better jobs simply have better lives. But the problem with communism is that there is no chance for social mobility because this constructed social class of people who are better than other people at things has now been solidified in place as a permanant group. Because now you have a conundrum. These people were placed in this role because they did a better job at it than other people. But you lack the means to get them out of that position because there really is only one way to force someone to do something and that is with law. But you said that a state wouldn't have this kind of power, so you can't really remove these people out of these positions if other people who are good at the job come around.

As for social democracy, I know the difference, even though most people in my country dont. By socialism I mean entirely public means of production in which everyone gets the same level of resources. Social democracy is different because it just advocates for the country's rich helping out the poor a little bit, a welfare state, as you said. Both of these ideologies' issues remain in the fact that social democracy, as you said, relies on deficit and unemployment to work in the first place, and socialism ignores the fact that, once upon a time, poverty and wealth existed. So usually, in the path to get to a truly socialist economy, you have to first transition to a social democracy to get everyone on the same playing field, and then start publicizing and communally running things industry by industry.

Next comment. This is exactly the issue. I think the reason communism has failed in the past is because of this underlying issue. Not economic incentive and all kinds of other arguments that capitalists use to justify themselves, but simply that it is very easy for communism to go along the wrong path. And it comes down to a very simple paradox. If everyone is of the same class, then who has authority over who? The State shouldn't exist. The bourgeoisie doesn't exist. And promoting anyone to a position of power would be defeating the purpose of having everyone on the same level. So when you try to fix it, and put someone in control, you could potentially be creating a Stalin, skewing the communism away and end up just being under a very poor dictator.

I'm not saying that communism can't work. Theoretically speaking, it should. And it's not how people say "oh it just looks good on paper but in application..." That's somewhat wrong too. It's the transition to a different system that is so difficult to get through. Just like, to get to socialism, capitalists have to enable their state to redistribute wealth and then switch over to socialism, you can't really just immediately switch from capitalism to communism. Unfortunately, due to the past, communism gets a bad rap. So making efforts to slowly transition to a communism would be blocked by democratic congresses. So your only bet is to spring up a revolution and tear down the democracy. But in doing so, you may have just created another Stalin. Transition is key, and setting up your country to embrace communism can make it work a whole lot better than if you simply rush a revolution and leave a lot of loopholes unanswered. All of the loose ends will have to be tied up in the future, leaving your tapestry a mess, and letting some guy come in saying that he can tie up the loose ends and end up taking over the country ruthlessly, like Donald Trump .

But hey, I'm not going to tell you what to think. I think I read this article that said that by the time someone is around 12 or 13, their beliefs are usually set and it's really hard to get them to change unless they do it themselves. Anyways...

 

It can and it has. There are small collectives of like minded friars and Amish who own and share everything in common. The original Christian apostles reportedly lived like that. Where it doesn't work is when you try to force it upon unwilling participants at the point of a gun.

I think your and preteen's error is that you suppose that there is a cabal of capitalists and it is only they who stand in the way of your revolution. It isn't. Common laborers want to be free to form social relations with others, some of them owners, some of them managers, in order to make what they think (not what communist theorists think) is the most beneficial way of making a living. There are bums on the street who would rather be left alone than swept up in some violent revolution that they know will leave them even worse off than they already are.

Please go form a commune and leave the rest of us alone. We don't want what you're selling.

 

Why anyone with any degree of common sense and intelligence would do so is beyond any form of logic. But many do so due to lack of sufficient rationality.

 

Are you insinuating that I am a communist? I despise communism. I absolutely hate it. I just appreciate the points they make. It's not like just because they are communists doesn't mean that they are wrong about everything. Did you even read my post? The entire thing is against communism, proving that it cant.

As for the Amish, that proves another point I made on a different thread. The Amish are communists, but they don't really live lavishly like we do. They have to live in this quasi-1800s style manner in order for their system to work at all. It'll work in a small group of people who all hold the same beliefs and values. But it can't work in a huge nation like the US where not everyone agrees on everything and the population can't be individually reasoned with. There were 12 Apostles and Christ, surly 13 guys could get along. 13,000 is pushing it. And 13,000,000 is overkill. With 300,000,000 people, you need to have a government. Which presents a paradox. If everyone is the same, how come that guy can tell me what to do? Well, he has a gun to my head, that's why. And thus, a Stalin is born.

- - - Updated - - -

Agree wholeheartedly. It's not that I disagree with them completely. But their party is so backwards and filled with a bunch of idiots that I simply can't stand them.

 

No. I do think your post assumes "the capitalists" have more power than they do. Just like, to get to socialism, capitalists have to enable their state to redistribute wealth.

The state can take their wealth from them without their consent, and everyone gets to vote on who controls the levers of state power.


Now ... are you sure you aren't a dirty commie?

Whoa, put down the knife, I'm just a joshing you there!

 

Let's understand this about capital: Money is capital. When we say "free enterprise", we mean there should be a healthy exchange of currency. If capitalism truly promoted the said healthy exchange of currency, capitalism would indeed be a system that would also promote the healthy exchange of human values..

So, why are people impoverished in a capitalist society? Because, the capitalist society has betrayed its own free enterprise system. In today's "consumer economy", the "wealth" is transferred from the lower classes(who must purchase goods, furnitures, etc, utility bills, rent, mortgage) to survive and then there's the "higher classes" who feed off of the lower classes like parasites.

They're called "venture capitalists", let's just call them what they are: Thieves. The "Free Enterprise" system only exists for and by the thieves. For the lower classes, they only have "just enough capital" not to revolt and to continue feeding The System.

This is actually not new whatsoever and it predates Fascism, Communism and even all forms of government. Way back in the day, the ones who owned the farms, owned the railroads, etc(owned physical assets, in other words), were the ones who could charge curry and favor and the ones who got rich. The lower classes, had to provide the said curry and favor just to exist.

So nothing has changed at all really, in a span of a millennium. The only difference, is the physical money(currency) was invented to better facilitate the local trade of goods, as well as higher access to goods. But it was an incredibly flawed system that didn't change anything, except what was exchanged.

The only way to truly make our economy wealthier is not merely an increase in currency, but an increase in physical goods to be accessed. And more importantly, these goods(and the share of the economy) cannot trickle up, but by necessity we must demand a bigger and larger participation in the National Economy.

According to one report, we only have 4 million profitable businesses. Only 4 million businesses in the green, in a country of over 320 million. We've seen millions of people fail with start-ups. We have to aggressively tackle this problem, because it's the only way out of the economic stagnation. In my opinion, we have 20% Entrepreneurs/80% Workers. That simply cannot be.

That logjam is the reason people are out of the work force. That log jam is the reason wages haven't increased, because it's hard to get promoted to a job someone's already filled. What if we doubled the amount of Entrepreneurs?

If we went from 20/80 to 60/40, it becomes a whole lot more balanced. Since these workers became entrepreneurs of their own right, they would have finally elevated themselves in the economic strata. Because they became entrepreneurs, jobs opened up in the positions they formerly held and none of this even begins to take into account the jobs they will create as entrepreneurs.

Like I said: We humans are an ant colony, and when we start moving as a colony, we're going to see some major changes for the better. More, higher production will lead to more wealth. For those who want printing, we'll be printing whether we like it or not due to sheer production. For those who want a balanced budget(or more specifically, a budget in the green), when our production outpaces our spending, we'll be in the green.

And since this will impact all areas of our economy, big or small, no one will truly be left behind. It's just a step away, a decision away. A Centralized economy is the 21st century vision of freedom and entrepreneurship.

 

A centralized economy??? What the heck does that mean? Who's in charge of it? What am I allowed to buy and sell? Do I need their permission to buy a new car or a hot dog? It sounds like a vanguard.

 

By "the capitalists" I meant capitalist countries, not individuals. So like, Bernie Sanders' whole thing about social democracy. You have to first redistribute the wealth in order to transition into a socialism. So you have to transition into social democracy and then to socialism if you are a capitalist country.

And yea, I figured.

 

The proof is in the pudding!!

FACT...every single Commmunist System in HISTORY has either failed....example Soviet Union..etc....has had it's Commie Party Leadership change the nation over to a Capitalist System and PRETEND it's still Commie....example....China, Vietnam....etc....or IS FAILING RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES...example North Korea, Cuba....etc.

AA

 

How old are you, actually? Are you really a preteen? Your comments reflect a much older age. Are your parents professors or something?

Just asking, not calling you a liar.

 

Much like libertarianism, communism is a pure abstraction. The only difference is that communism is empirically invalid, while libertarianism has never been attempted, thank Zeus. Personally, I think libertarianism would be an even greater disaster. 80% of the population would probably be on heroin and living off of handjobs, when they weren't working for $3 an hour LMAO. Afterwards, they would be invaded because they couldn't agree to stop selling technology to Iran--the money was too good!

 

Yes, I've kind of come to terms with the gradual shifting of my opinions (they're still moving around and trying to slot into place as we speak) over the past week. And politics definitely, 100% isn't for me. It started as a theoretical interest and then acquired a practical dimension when I joined a party, and since the split the theoretical dimension has become less and less interesting. But I never intended to go into it anyway, just like I never intended to go into musical theatre; both were and are just hobbies.

Anyway. It's an interesting point you raise about individuality, but the (I admit) contra-individual-ism (not merely individualism, but the very being of the individual) of communism suits us quite well since I'd say we generally view the concept of the individual as suspect. I don't know if I'm still part of this "we" and I haven't even begun to think about how my views on the individual will look if I drift away from Marxism (I will never believe in the self in a supra-linguistic sense, thanks to Mach and Nietzsche, but the individual is different). But yeah, communists do indeed advocate a society without rules, "values" and individuals. Why is such a society not possible?

 

Communism isn't about everyone being the same. When Marxists talk about the abolition or whatever other Hegelian (*)(*)(*)(*) they use to express the fate of the class system, they are referring solely to a set of economic relations: that of different strata of society having different relations to the means of production. Personal sameness has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Sorry, how? That's not a class (as in a stratum with a certain relationship to the means of production). It's not even an unchanging, solid group of people. It's random people being appointed or choosing momentarily at and for random periods of time to play a co-ordinative but not coercive role in a certain task, and that is only if a certain task requires such co-ordination, which many tasks will not. As for people just being better at things, if person A is better at shooting in a netball match than person B, is there some kind of permanent hierarchy there? That's not describing a concrete social relation, it's describing one skill out of an enormous if not infinite number of potential skills at which person A happens to be more proficient than person B for whatever reason. Person B may well be better in defense than person A, or they may be better at mathematics or memorising lists something else with a degree of objectivity. There are no hierarchies there; just an acknowledgement that different people have different skills and a celebration of some people's skills at certain things. With subjective things like painting or cooking, skills will probably be measured in a less relational manner (so person A would simply be "good" not "the best"), although friendly competitions are still fun; they just wouldn't be taken too seriously.

Actually, you've just opened up (perhaps inadvertently) an interesting linguistic discussion about the future of the comparative and superlative forms in communism. I think they will still exist, but be regarded as a generalisation and nothing concretely quantitative. I was in the process of constructing a language which could be used in a communist society and I did intend to construct a comparative form for it, but maybe I could also have a suffix which indicates generalisation.

Anyway, that's a huge tangent, sorry. That's just what I've been interested in lately.

The nature of the workplace would be much more dynamic than it is under capitalism. There could always be multiple people taking on a co-ordinative role, and it is very unlikely that the duration of such a role would be too long.

Perhaps you're forgetting "to each according to need"?

Strictly speaking, Lassallean sorts of socialism (against which Marxists polemicised vigorously) did advocate such repartitioning (is that the right word?) of resources. But Marxist communism is more of a "rock up to the/a communal store and take what you want" thing. Although such a system requires overabundance, which is one of the preconditions for full communism.

In what way does it ignore that fact? That's the whole reason why the transition period is a thing and we don't just jump straight into communism.

Only reformist varieties of socialism involve that sort of transition.

No one has, and no one needs, permanent central authority. Simple as that.

Have you read any Fromm? I think you'd find him interesting. Haben und Sein (don't know if it was translated as To Have and To Be or Having and Being) is probably his best.

It's a good thing no one at all is suggesting an immediate switch, then.

Only if conditions are as (*)(*)(*)(*)ty as they were in the Soviet Union will that happen after revolution (which is the only measure I'm advocating, by the way).

Communism (or the transition period for that matter) wouldn't even have the structures or false consciousness needed for that kind of Trump situation. And this is very vague anyway. Obviously transition is imperative and obviously we can't "rush" the revolution, and I never said anything about some sort of "wave the magic wand and boom, communism!" thing. There shouldn't be any loose ends if there is successful proletarian conquest of power in multiple countries.

I think I'm changing my mind myself, actually. Nothing to do with an objection anyone has raised on this site (if anything, those have affirmed my feeling that no one has anything new to say); I'm just bored of Marxism and of the general ineptitude of the left at this point.

 

Yeah, yeah, nice ad hominem-s. But why did you ask me in particular? Is it not quite evident that a communist would not have any sympathies towards a party which would be labelled "far-right" if it existed here in Europe?

 

And this is why I'm so sick of this goshdarn debate. Honestly, I can't be bothered to explain why these countries never became communist and were barely ever proletarian in class character anymore.

- - - Updated - - -

I turned 15 4 days ago and was 12 when I made an account on this site.

 

Ok, well, I'm not going to continue this debate because it's pretty much the same one everyone's been having since Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto so. Never read any Fromm, although the name is familiar. Pretty sure it means "To Have and Be" but my German is rusty. I suppose I'll just end with this. In a small group of people who all share the same beliefs and values, communism works beautifully, better even, than capitalism. Some examples would be the Christian Apostles, the Amish in America, a lot of Native American societies, and I'm pretty sure a lot of Germanic tribes in Europe way back when operated under a communist system. But when you have a group of people that have differing values and beliefs, a larger population, and just an overall necessity of management, communism starts to falter. If you could somehow get this group to work together well enough, you could get it to work, but it just seems too risky.

As for being bored of Marxism, what really bores you about it? I suppose in Europe the Left is worse than the US Left, cuz we really only have two parties and the other side is a lot more deranged than our Left wing party. In the article, it said that, if other people debate you on your stance, it tends to actually harden your position there, because you feel a sense of loyalty to a set of beliefs and start figuring out ways to defend them. So actually, people debating you on the site probably hardened your belief in communism.

Anyways, cheers!

 

Pretty sure what he's getting at is a fascist form of economy that Mussolini tried out way back when. Its like socialism in the sense that the government involves itself in the economy but not in the sense that industries are public. As centralized economy, if you will. So you're allowed to do everything you would be allowed to do in regular capitalism, but the government has the power to stop corporate greed and invest in industries that they need for whatever reason. So like the Germans made Volkswagen under the fascist government to give everyone a car (the people's car), but you still had to buy it like you would under a regular capitalist system.

 

Very, very impressive.

 

Pretty much. I'm bored of it too, to tell you the truth. Haben und Sein is literally To Have and To Be but German doesn't have a direct equivalent of the progressive form (-ing) so the official English translation might use that form rather than the infinitive. I know in French to English translations, the infinitive is sometimes replaced by the progressive (être -> being etc.). I'd recommend reading Fromm in German if your comprehension's good enough; most German philosophy and sociology translates pretty badly.

Anyway, I still don't think there's any need for authority in the coercive sense, but whatever.
This is quite a futile debate.

I think 2 and a half years with one general worldview is a bit long for me. I'm a bit of a thrill-seeker and I always get bored of things and want to try out new things, so I think the issue is my temperament rather than communism itself. I also have a bit of FOMO going on, and I think there are plenty more fish in the sociological sea, particularly because I can pretty much do what I want politically because it's never going to be my field of study or work. So that's it really. The general crap on the left does have a lot to do with it as well. The left in Europe for the last thirty or so years has basically been reduced to irrelevant, bickering little splinter groups.

- - - Updated - - -

Why thank you ^_^

 

So join UKIP and start yourself a little business: tutoring, making cookies, selling pictures of me. Just some ideas ....

 

Oh god no, why is everyone making me think of food when I'm trying to fast ����

 

Yeah, your world view tends to change once puberty sets in. Why are you fasting? Practicing for the next food shortage?

 

Haha, no, basically it's a religious fasting period in Jainism right now and my mum's a Jain so she's fasting. I'm not a Jain, but I'm kind of doing it in solidarity (it's quite fun to fast and break fasts with someone else) and just to get better at self-control. Short fasts are also quite beneficial to the health.

 

How would you reform the Republican party?

 

For what purpose?