Today I got slandered as a Revisionist, simply because I believe its pointless to follow Marx, or any of the other 4's words like my bible. Communism is about giving power to people, giving equality to people, times change, are people really suggesting that we use 100 year old policies ? Politics doesn't work that way. Traditionalists are dying off, maybe they can realise that there is still hope for this ideal, just in a new, modern way. The way I see it, the same tactic does not work for everyone, we are diverse, and hopefully we'll remain diverse, else this'll get an extremely boring planet. What "worked"* for Russia won't work in the UK, US, Japan, South America, Iran, Australia, Brazil.
* People who treat the Soviet Union like its some form of godly government is also absolutely crackers, I almost wonder why I call myself a communist. I consider the Soviet Union as a failure, and not much better, if better at all from the Russian Empire.
ID:11903
 May 2 2006, 5:36 pm
|
|
Wildrogue may be a douche, but that was pretty funny.
| |
I'm not sure how you can reconcile communism with the bit of common sense that in all previous and current incarnations it has been a total failure. Communism and common sense are in fact mutually exclusive, and those 100 years of history you mentioned (well, 89 actually) have borne that out in spades.
It sounds like you're on the cusp of the grand realization that life is not a class war, the burgeois are not out to screw you, and equal results for everyone are not achievable. The last part is the important bit, because it's what separates utopian pinheads from rational man. (Whether adequate results for everyone are achievable is a separate question. History says almost certainly not.) | |
Lummox JR said:
stuff THAT'S JUST WHAT BUSH CORP. WANTS YOU TO THINK COMMUNIST REVOLUTION FOREVER MILD SOCIALISM YEAH (come to think of it I've not seen Mild Socialism online recently) | |
Communism is about giving power to people Actually, communism is about giving the power to the government, all the power. It has nothing to do with empowering the people, and most incarnations of communism have had a dictator or other ruler who controlled the government. Many assume that because it removes class, it makes all people equal. But what if the government dictated you to be the Poopsmith, I doubt you would consider yourself equal to the button pusher. Democracy is the only form of government that I have found that really gives the power to the people, so much so that it allows people to refuse that power (not vote). I just can't understand how you think that communism is even close to a good idea. I suppose it sounds nice, but I enjoy working hard and earning something more than the next guy. I would be very angry if I busted my arsh and did not get rewarded because it would put me above everyone else. | |
Scoobert: You confuse communism with Communism. That is the economic philosophy v. the political power. Many Communist governments were not communist. Rather, they drew from communist ideals to fuel (and justify) their actions. Communism as a theory is largely derived from collectivist egalitarian ideals.
While there are different strains of communism, one consistent idea is collective ownership and control over resource allocation as opposed to individualized control. Thus, democracy and communism are far from being mutually exclusive. Arguably, a true democracy would be more likely to adopt a communist view then some sort of individualist view. Communism as a theory is, however, general antithetical to capitalism and, more specifically, corporatism as these rely on individualist methods of resource allocation. Worse, these methods create additional layers to insulate asset ownership from public oversight (arificial legal enitities like corporations). As to your critique of collective labor, nowhere do most communist theories say there is any excuse to slack off. Quite the oppossite. If an individual is failing to work according to his ability, he violates the most basic premise of communist theory. The reprecussions of that vary by individual view, but could range from a denial of associated benefits to more extreme punishments. Ideally the consequences would be determined by the collective. Likewise, their is no reason why exceptional workers could not recieve praise, honor, or even more material rewards. Again, that would probably be determined by group will. What the individual would not be able to do is sever resources from the public's authority and use them purely for his own selfish benefit at the expense of others. Note, I am not an advocate of communism, just pointing out that many of these philosophies are much more intricate than the kneejerk polemics that tend to be tossed about by critics with their own designs on power. | |
Problem is, Jmurph, the free market is the only adequate way known of rewarding hard work and punishing slackers. Having "the people" make such decisions on a daily basis is infeasible.
That's related to the reason why communism's power always tends to centralize to the government. As much as the goal is to give power to the people, the economic philosophy requires strong central oversight; politically to give that power to the people would require every decision, even rather small ones, to be made by vote or committee. The economic theory is no more lucid than the political; it just seems that way because the political is so daft. In summary: Marx was an idiot. He never thought his ideas through and he blamed all the wrong people and reasons for the world's problems. The free market has its failings, it's true, but nothing yet conceived has outclassed it. Like Heinlein famously said, democracy is a lousy system, but it's 8 times better than any other system. | |
Hey, I never said it would work! Leave that to the philosophers. Although I would disagree that the free market is the only known way of rewarding hard work and punishing slackers. Slackers get lucky, hard workers get fired and end up on the street. Hard workers are also rewarded in controlled economies, just by different means. And decisions need not be made daily nor directly. An elected body could provide oversight through laws. Much like our own system. Your critique is much more appropriate to pure democracy than communal ownership (which could have a variety of governance structures).
I don't think it is any inherent flaw of communism that leads to centralized government. Well, not anymore than any other system (look at the increased centralization of our own government, a republic, over the years). It has alot more to do with humans craving power. Whatever the form of governance, there will always be those who seek more power and those willing to yield it. And those that get power do not relinquish it easily. The irony is that the very things that make power systems necessary is also what makes them dangerous. My theory is that almost any system will work so long as you have a core of deicated, productive citizens. Hence why cultures ranging from primitive theocratic monarchies to modern republics have been successful. So long as the plusses outweigh the minuses, everything is okay. But you reach a turning point at some point where ambition, greed, and sloth undermine dedication, community, and honesty. Inevitably the system fails. I agree that Karl Marx missed alot. But so do most people. Take for example the blind devotion many have to capitalism and totally ignore warnings given by economists like Adam Smith. To me this is just as bad. The problem isn't just the systems; it's the refusal to recognize the failings inherent in human nature. Or worse, the willfull disregard of them. | |
Oh sure, you all post when I sleep.
| |
And people that dont are black people