Communism

[irmerk]

If everybody has such a problem with the ruling class and corporations, why not become them?

If your tired of your boss criticizing you and scolding you like a child, then leave and become your own boss?

Is it really that hard? The system is not a closed oligarchy.

It most certainly is. As someone else responded to you, there is a set number of people, money and power. To try and cut part of the power and money out of the pie for yourself, you would have to push someone already in power out of it to take their place and step on someone. With no leverage, how can you possibly say this is an easy task? Aside from the fact that I am in college and cannot do anything, people go through great difficulty trying to be the boss. Tired of being ruled by Microsoft and Windows? Tough shit, because you are almost definitely not going to beat them. Tired of working for a hospital as a physical therapist? Try making your own company and realize it sucks your soul dry.

 

[felixthecoach]

I'd add to what Irmerk is saying. Even though certain science can advance everyone (e.g. corn threshers, computers, and elevators), not everyone can become a "corn thresher company owner" or a leading "computer manufacturer". People, no matter how ambitious in general can only make it so high on that ladder. Having said that, in America, the propaganda goes that everyone can achieve everything with, to quote spongebob, "...a lot of work, and a teensy bit of magic..."

 

[Weirdtopia]

So does there have to be a higher order over other people for there to be Capitalism or Communism?
There always have to be a manager and there always have to be a worker, but the question should be is that should they be the same level i guess or should the manager be higher?

 

[Ozymandyus]

Tired of being ruled by microsoft and windows? Join the linux community! Too much work? Buy an apple! Just a different kind of rule? What is it you want exactly?

Saying that running your own physical therapy business 'sucks your soul dry' is just an acknowledgement of the fact that we CHOOSE to work for someone because it is WAY better than working for ourselves. We are not enslaved, quite the contrary... we are FREE of all the drudgery of paperwork and accounting and this and that. We could CHOOSE to start our own business if we wanted, but we don't because we know it would suck, comparitively.

Yes, it's true that not everyone can be the owner of a gigantic company. But it is just as true that no one HAS to work for someone else. This is just how society has arranged itself in the capitalist system, because this is, to a large extent, what people want. They have voted with their dollars and their choices to work for X. Certain positions require a LOT of hard work and a little bit of luck. Chances are if you WERE a leader of a gigantic company, you would be envious of a simple worker that didn't have all the ridiculous responsibilities that you do. Ah, sweet irony.

By the way... how is there a set number of people money and power? More money and more power AND more people are created every day. You can choose to create wealth by taking out a loan. You are not really stealing this from anyone, it is pretty much created out of nothing (99% of it is anyway), one of the wonders of the financial system. Money is power so bingo you have more money and power. All you need to secure this loan is a good idea, and the ability to communicate. If you just have a good idea, you just need to be able to draw it up in a presentable way, and you can ask someone else to communicate for you.

 

[felixthecoach]

Ozymandyus, i'm just kindof venting at the limits of capitalism and the "american dream". I guess it's true that you need competition, but we probably agree that unbridled free market capital does not maximize the benefits to all citizens and limit the number of oppressed citizens.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Ozymandyus, i'm just kindof venting at the limits of capitalism and the "american dream". I guess it's true that you need competition, but we probably agree that unbridled free market capital does not maximize the benefits to all citizens and limit the number of oppressed citizens.

Oh, I most certainly agree with that. There are all kinds of problems with capitalism, and I often speak out against those flaws myself. But this idea that capitalism is the system with the least choice is strange to me, as I find it to be the exact opposite. Communism/anarchism often assumes that we will always choose the right thing, that we don't even HAVE a choice because we would never even conceive of doing the bad things we do now. That is a lot more like slavery to me than capitalism.

 

[irmerk]

Tired of being ruled by microsoft and windows? Join the linux community! Too much work? Buy an apple! Just a different kind of rule? What is it you want exactly?

What you refer to was me saying

Tired of being ruled by Microsoft and Windows? Tough shit, because you are almost definitely not going to beat them.

In response to

If everybody has such a problem with the ruling class and corporations, why not become them?

So, I was not speaking of alternatives to Microsoft in OS products, but rather the extreme unlikelihood of replacing them single handed as the major OS producer.

Saying that running your own physical therapy business 'sucks your soul dry' is just an acknowledgment of the fact that we CHOOSE to work for someone because it is WAY better than working for ourselves.

Yes, the regulations from the government you must go through on top of the demands to just run it, much less successfully, are reasons why we do not follow the suggestion of this question, which I was replying to:

If your tired of your boss criticizing you and scolding you like a child, then leave and become your own boss?

We are not enslaved, quite the contrary... we are FREE of all the drudgery of paperwork and accounting and this and that. We could CHOOSE to start our own business if we wanted, but we don't because we know it would suck, comparatively.

Yeah, I know. I do not think I implied any message of slavery in this thread, nor any message of inability. I was saying things like:

... how can you possibly say this is an easy task?

,

... you are almost definitely not going to beat [Microsoft].

and

... making your own company ... sucks your soul dry.

In response to

... why not become them?

and

Is it really that hard?

In order to say, "Yes, it is."

Yes, it's true that not everyone can be the owner of a gigantic company. But it is just as true that no one HAS to work for someone else. This is just how society has arranged itself in the capitalist system, because this is, to a large extent, what people want. They have voted with their dollars and their choices to work for X. Certain positions require a LOT of hard work and a little bit of luck. Chances are if you WERE a leader of a gigantic company, you would be envious of a simple worker that didn't have all the ridiculous responsibilities that you do. Ah, sweet irony.

I agree with what you have said here. I think you just misread or misinterpreted my message and took objection. Then, kind of started rambling like you know you do sometimes.

By the way... how is there a set number of people money and power? More money and more power AND more people are created every day.

True. I was trying to say that to take a part of the market share of a product or service, you pretty much need to step on or above the current competition, which has more power than you since they were there first. This, as I said, is hard.

 

[Ozymandyus]

I am not meaning to tear you down or anything though I understand if it feels that way. There was a definitive argument being presented that capitalism is taking our choices away and that we are trapped and such. The fact that I used your post as a jumping off point was just because it was the last one that was addressing the subject and it was well written. It wasn't because I thought you were being naive or any such.

I have nothing but respect for everyone, and sorry if in my forming of my own arguments I use other people's statements as jumping off points. Its just how I think, and no ill will is intended. However, the idea of 'work as slavery' and inescapable shackles of capitalism was in the air... I apologize if I implied that you held this view and you don't - but I still stand by the point.

 

[richi1173]

It most certainly is. As someone else responded to you, there is a set number of people, money and power. To try and cut part of the power and money out of the pie for yourself, you would have to push someone already in power out of it to take their place and step on someone. With no leverage, how can you possibly say this is an easy task? Aside from the fact that I am in college and cannot do anything, people go through great difficulty trying to be the boss. Tired of being ruled by Microsoft and Windows? Tough shit, because you are almost definitely not going to beat them. Tired of working for a hospital as a physical therapist? Try making your own company and realize it sucks your soul dry.

There is no set number of money and power. Opportunity grows as industries grow. For example, Bill Gates became member of the ruling class through the expansion of the economic pie thorough the opportunity offered in the OS market.

You establish leverage through connections. These connections serve as your shield and sword in th economy.

I do have my own company, and it works pretty well for me.

To continue this conversation, we have to define what the ruling class exactly is.

According to Fredrick Engels, it is : "The class of the big capitalists, who in all advanced countries are in almost exclusive possession of the means of subsistence and those means (machines, factories, workshops, etc.) by which these means of subsistence are produced."

Is the owner of a company part of the ruling class? What if the company only brings in menial income?

 

[irmerk]

You asked why we do not do it ourselves as if we were complaining about something, and I answered you as to it being actually hard, especially to be in the ruling class level.

 

[XC(A)libur]

Ecoshamanism? Google failed, scanning your debate failed, so what next? Explain what this means. It sounds interesting.

Inside our brains are antagonists, protagonists, receptors, and sensors which determine our conceptions of reality based on our perceptions. These receptors are blocked by naturally occurring chemical functions in our normal state as of today. But we can stop these censors. Some people are believed to encounter a spritual world, which in our reality is impossible. But what they are really seeing IS reality, and that is the spiritual world. When people receive alchohol they are adding censors to their receptors and altering their perceptions. They sense less than even we do in our normal state today, this is because the chemical functions are altered and their receptors are not receiving the full image. Here is a list of annual American deaths due to-

Annual American deaths due to:

TOBACCO ..................... 435,000
POOR DIET ................... 365,000
ALCOHOL ..................... 100,000
MICROBIAL AGENTS ............ 75,000
TOXIC AGENTS ................ 55,000
VEHICLE CRASHES ............. 26,347
PRESCRIPTIONS ............... 32,000
SUICIDE ..................... 30,622
FIREARM INCIDENTS ........... 29,000
MURDER ...................... 20,308
SEXUAL BEHAVIOR ............. 20,000
ALL ILLEGAL DRUG USE ........ 17,000
ASPIRIN, MOTRIN, ETC ........ 7,600
CAFFEINE .................... 2,000
PSILOCYBIN .................. 0
MESCALINE ................... 0
LYSERGIC ACID DIETHYLAMIDE .. 0
DIMETHYLTRYPTAMINE .......... 0
CANNABIS SATIVA ............. 0
Sources: National Institute on Drug Abuse, Bureau of Mortality Statistics, Journal of the American Medical Association.

Notice that cannabis and other natural medicines have never killed or harmed anyone, they are also the only ones on this list which are illegal. This is because of the drug war instigated by the Nixon administration and other conservative politicians, you know the story, they needed an enemy in a time of power struggle. Ecoshamans have also largely enhanced medical procedures. They claim to do so by visiting the real world, and bringing back what messages they can to share to the whole world. Among them is a drug called Ayahuasca which is a DMT containing liquid medicine that temporarily allows certain neurotransmitters to act without censorship and removes antagonists from receptors for perceptual and cognitive enhancement.

The hysteria of the "magical forces" are all false. However, ecoshamans do practice entheogenic and spritual rituals for medical purposes among other purposes. These rituals and practices have existed longer than anyone has ever recalled, even the practice of christianity and judaism. Historical records date back to longer than anyone can remember. There is no moral code or doctrine, it is simply

"Do as you may, as long as you harm none including yourself". Ecoshamans live everywhere, some do not even know they are considered ecoshamans. Africa, Asia, even America.

 

[felixthecoach]

Annual American deaths due to

I missed how this relates to Communism VS Capitalism?

 

[COMMUNIST FLISK]

I missed how this relates to Communism VS Capitalism?

agreed
dont stray too far from the topic please!

 

[desertedcities]

Yeah, really.

Anyways, I was reading, well, some other topic and a simple thought came to me.

They were talking about robotics and automation or something or other, and I thought, "Well, this is interesting..." I thought that in this capitalistic society that business that tries to gain profits will go for automation and prefabrication so there isn't a huge workforce they have to pay. I figured that if they could get somewhere around 80% - 90% efficiency with the smallest workforce, paying their workforce whatever they feel, that couldn't this transfer over to a (ersatz) socialist/communist society?

I thought it could. There would be enough automation that there would only be a small workforce to maintain the automated systems, and the profits from these former capitalist businesses could start to practice a bit of communism and distribute their wealth and what not.

Okay... Just realized I wasn't done thinking about this.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Yeah, really.

Anyways, I was reading, well, some other topic and a simple thought came to me.

They were talking about robotics and automation or something or other, and I thought, "Well, this is interesting..." I thought that in this capitalistic society that business that tries to gain profits will go for automation and prefabrication so there isn't a huge workforce they have to pay. I figured that if they could get somewhere around 80% - 90% efficiency with the smallest workforce, paying their workforce whatever they feel, that couldn't this transfer over to a (ersatz) socialist/communist society?

I thought it could. There would be enough automation that there would only be a small workforce to maintain the automated systems, and the profits from these former capitalist businesses could start to practice a bit of communism and distribute their wealth and what not.

Okay... Just realized I wasn't done thinking about this.

Indeed. One of the main forces behind the urgency of Marx's work was the growing movement of mechanization of labor. The whole idea of the elite controlling the means of production had begun to take on a new and frightening meaning. Not only could they reap the fruit of the labor of the workforce, but they could replace the workforce itself with new means of production, and reap the benefits for themselves. The result of this seems to be a worker completely divorced from the products he helps produce (unable to afford them, and not even able to have real pride of craftsmanship in them), which can only lead to dissatisfaction and eventually revolt and takeover of the means of production. So communism was thought to be the inevitable conclusion of this sort of mechanization.

However, capitalism has managed to put off this conclusion by creating new industries for workers, such as the service industry and more recently the software industry. And also have managed to quell it through gigantic advances in military technology, which make the prospect of revolt much scarier than in Marx's time. In any case this has been an increasing problem with capitalism, and one I am very interested in and presented in another thread about job creation... if you are interested.

 

[XC(A)libur]

[/quote]I missed how this relates to Communism VS Capitalism?[/quote]

Death has everything in the world to do with communism vs capitalism. Death has everything to do with everything.

 

[XC(A)libur]

Indeed. One of the main forces behind the urgency of Marx's work was the growing movement of mechanization of labor. The whole idea of the elite controlling the means of production had begun to take on a new and frightening meaning. Not only could they reap the fruit of the labor of the workforce, but they could replace the workforce itself with new means of production, and reap the benefits for themselves. The result of this seems to be a worker completely divorced from the products he helps produce (unable to afford them, and not even able to have real pride of craftsmanship in them), which can only lead to dissatisfaction and eventually revolt and takeover of the means of production. So communism was thought to be the inevitable conclusion of this sort of mechanization.

However, capitalism has managed to put off this conclusion by creating new industries for workers, such as the service industry and more recently the software industry. And also have managed to quell it through gigantic advances in military technology, which make the prospect of revolt much scarier than in Marx's time. In any case this has been an increasing problem with capitalism, and one I am very interested in and presented in another thread about job creation... if you are interested.

And YOU don't think this correlates with the book 1984?

That is a huge problem with capitalism. "Innovation" is not exactly something you can give credit to capitalism for. People forget that capitalism is just trading goods as a means of survival. This does not innovate, obviously when you have a system based on survival innovation is not a top priority to the society. Technology and mechanization exemplifies that retrogression, survival isn't progressing society, netiher is capitalism.

 

[XC(A)libur]

The most infuriating thing is this definition of human nature you are trying to ascribe to me. You made the 'Human nature does not exist, easy to see as the light of day' quote before I even made a post! And now you are saying that this use of human nature was MY definition of human nature you were railing against? This claim is the only reason I even entered this argument - because I totally disagree with this statement. All I can ask is that you actually reread the basis of this argument and see how you have completely confounded yourself. We started this with my saying 'Show me why you think human nature does not exist' in response to that statement by you. Then you said the 'nature of humans is determined by the ruling class.' This was before I made a single statement about human nature - now you are telling me that THAT definition that YOU presented for human nature is MY definition and you were secretly arguing against it as a poor definition of human nature? Its the most insane thing I've ever had to argue against. I mean worse than creationist arguments. You chose a side and then ASSIGNED that side to me and tried to make me defend it!

Stop redefining all of your own statements, you are MANGLING the English language and twisting it to mean nothing at all. Make statements that have real meaning that you believe in, for example if you want to say "Human nature does not exist, based on this definition of human nature" then say THAT, don't just say 'Human nature does not exist', or 'Human nature is whatever free will chooses it to be.'

'YOUR definite perception of human nature is indeed formed by the ruling class' - First of all, you seem to have no clue about my perception of human nature.. I don't even agree that human nature can be perceived directly, so I should say that you have no idea about my Conception of human nature. That much is clear in EVERY statement you make. If you want to see my definition, read back and see that my definition is based on a scientific understanding of the common characteristics of humans.

I've read 1984... I very much doubt that is where we are heading, but think what you will. I think people fear this, and have feared it for well more than the 60 years since Orwell wrote 1984. At times we have had more to fear from Big Brother (most recently years since 9/11 and war on terror in particular) and at times less. It is a great book though.

This is a completely unsupported claim. In communist Russia, they told everyone that they were working for the common good of the whole society, and we saw evidence again and again of lower output. You are making this claim against all evidence. Even when we do things for friends, and think we are just doing it for their good, we find the expectation of reciprocity, and friendships that are one sided fall apart. We find it again and again. All evidence and common sense imply that a certain kind of laziness is biologically ingrained in us, in fact it is one of the reasons we have been so successful as a species, to seek the Easiest path to accomplishing our needs. It has driven our abilities in terms of working together, and our ability to master nature with technology. Technology is nothing more than the embodiment of this desire.

You believe that human nature is impossible to determine based on our perceptions. That is interesting of you to say, this is because human nature does not exist. Even if you were to believe the actions of man when being infringed upon by authority is still an inherent action of human beings, that's basically to admit it would be most wise to stay away from these structures and denounce this authority.

Technology is not "an embodiment of the desire to be lazy". We spend more effort and time on creating this technology than fufilling this desire to even have a lifestyle of laziness. Technology is simply a fascination, a retrogression in the disguise of progression. Its use is nothing more than a standard of our society, determined by its functions. Technology is credited with improving lives as an innovation. But in reality mechanization is simply a fascination that the elite class can use for obvious yet marvelous advancements. The goal of every hierarchic society has always been to conquer everything, while also controlling the society's opinion so they do not interfere with the state's goals and standards. Technology is a great way to control a society. It models a fascination of an inherently endless scale of progression for the society and it usually results in less freedoms and liberty for the public. No matter what, technology and mechanization will always serve the elite class more opportunities for taking away the freedoms of the society and controlling public opinion.

But there is one problem. More mechanization means less work. If you research even vaguely the precedents of hierarchal structures you will find that a cycle of productivity or work has to be a standard. Without the people working and producing for their basic living needs, they could never be controlled, they would become to smart. Thus comes a solution of limiting goods that are essential to living every day life in that society, as a means to control them.

So the argument of capitalism being more innovative than communism is entirely false. It cannot be innovative, it only serves as a means of control for the elite class.

EDIT: By the by, Maoism and Stalinism neither exemplify the true form of Marxist theory. It was in Russia's culture to have a czar, and China an emporer. They tended towards their culture instead of their ACTUAL version of communism, and that was their downfall from the beginning. It was simply just a hierarchy, a mess.

 

[Ozymandyus]

'Technology is simply a fascination, a great way to control society, always serves elite class, a retrogression, we spend more time and effort creating it than being lazy.'
None of these statements about technology strikes me as remotely true. Technology can hardly be called 'simply' anything, as obviously you seem to realize by your long diatribe about it, all with complicated implications. And how on earth is it a retrogression - a retrogression to what? 'Technology always serve the elite class'? Well, I'm far from elite but my computer always does what I ask, even if ask it to write things about how much the elite class sucks. Technology controls us, imprisons us? On the contrary, we were 'shackled' to a small part of the globe before transportation technology freed us. We were bound to live lives less than half as long, before medical technology freed us. We were forced to follow around herds of animals, bound to their whims, before agriculture technology. We were subject to the whims of bad weather, before advanced shelters freed us from the dangers of frostbite and heat exhaustion. If these are signs of my state controlling me, bring it on!

As far as tech not letting us be lazy (and by being lazy I mean the time I am allowed to focus on my own wants rather than what I am forced to do), if I was half as lazy as I am now 2000 years ago, I would have died before I turned 20. I currently spend about 90% of my day doing whatever I want, and 10% working (which I don't mind either). Any hunter gatherer that focused on his own wants that much would have been kicked out of the tribe long before (or perhaps just beaten until he learned to shape up and run with the pack... ah the good old days.)

You believe that human nature is impossible to determine based on our perceptions. That is interesting of you to say, this is because human nature does not exist. Even if you were to believe the actions of man when being infringed upon by authority is still an inherent action of human beings, that's basically to admit it would be most wise to stay away from these structures and denounce this authority.

Don't know where you got that idea that I believe human nature is impossible to determine by our perceptions... I said that it was impossible to DIRECTLY perceive, just as the laws of nature and gravity are impossible to Directly perceive. I believe that human nature is quite possible to determine by a combination of our perceptions and the scientific method, the same way we find the nature of anything at all.

We know all kinds of scientific things about human nature. We know learn by modelling and building on foundational concepts. We've learned about the hierarchy of needs. We know about learning behaviors - via modelling, operant conditioning, etc. We know things about the stages of psychosocial and cognitive development. And we've learned all kinds of things about the nature of choice, the systems of memory, the tricks that the mind can play on perceptions. All these things are examples of human nature, and we've learned them by perceiving patterns, forming hypotheses, and gathering evidence about human nature. They imply serious things about what kind of society we need, what kinds of schools we need and what we should continue to investigate about ourselves.

At least I know now that you definitely believe there is no such thing as human nature, I had found it very hard to get a straight answer out of you on this subject earlier. Why is it you think humans prefer freedom if preferring freedom isn't in their nature? Why not just enslave absolutely everyone towards working for the common good, whatever that might mean? Or is that actually what you want, and you use these references to 'freedom' as food to entice a rabbit into a trap?

 

[felixthecoach]

Death has everything in the world to do with communism vs capitalism. Death has everything to do with everything.

Just to clear it up. You're saying that capitalism produced the Tobacco industry which is the leading cause of death in the U.S.?

If so, I'm sure someone would argue against you based on the history of tobacco. On the other hand, touché.