|
|
Post by johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt on Dec 30, 2004 1:38:47 GMT -5
i wrote this while i was feeling particularly political, check it out, i havne't read through it since i wrote it, so *shrugs* you were warned.
Ok, let’s talk about communism. Basic, very basic, definition is “a society in which, rather than for personal gain, the population works for the betterment of society.” It is commonly mistaken that the USSR was a communist state, this, however, is terribly wrong. At best the USSR was a socialist dictatorship. According to Karl Marx, a socialist dictatorship is the step between democracy and communism. This, however, is where I disagree. My take on this subject Is that, once the world went through the renaissance, even maybe industrialization, communism as a government and economic system was left in the dust as an impossibility. Capitalism became the dominant force in the world and there was no changing it. I think, contrary to what marx thought, that capitalism and communism are two different directions, not one after another steps. In order for a communist society to exist, the entire population has to have absolutely no form of greed. This, however, is almost entirely impossible in a capitalist world where the children are raised, like in the United States, to value personal gain, the repression of the weak, and idolatry of the great. The huge franchise that is the United States sport system is a great example of this. Children and adults alike watch sports with rapt attention following their favorite great athletes through their careers, and aspiring to achieve, or at least dreaming to have, the same kind of acceptance and power. This kind of thought is exactly what a communist nation is torn apart by. A person in a communist nation with any kind of sense of personal gain(besides that of the glory found in increasing the power, weath, etc. of the society) is very destructive, as can be seen by the example of Stalin in the former USSR. Under the guise of the idealism of socialism and communism, stalin was able to take control and create one of the most powerful nations of the 20th century.
Stalin can be used as an example as, not only the bad, but also the good side of communism. Until the soviet revolution, Czarist Russia was hopelessly backwards and weak. However, after the revolution, the creation of the USSR, and the creation of the 5 year plans by Stalin and Lenin, USSR became one of the two super powers of its era. In a mere 10-15 years, Russia went from hopelessly weak to incredibly strong, an unheard of speed of recovery.
This still does not address the problem of capitalism in a communist world, or vice versa. Capitalism is strong and has its roots deeply buried within todays society. Today children are raised with capitalist morals, and put down, insulted, or thought lesser of, if said child were to not understand the concept, or just not believe in the concept, of personal gain above all. The result? A population that is unwilling, or unable, to grasp the concept of, as it was best said by spock, “the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.” That statement is backwards to a capitalist boy, girl, man or woman! Indeed, capitalist morality is so opposite and selfish compared to that of a communist outlook that, were a capitalist to find him/herself within a communist society, it would be an easy thing to search out a place of power(or create one) and thus control this “communist” society all for personal gain. All without ever seeing a problem with it, thus are the morals of greed vs loyalty, selfishness and preservation of yourself vs preservation of the society and charity, manifested. Greed, selfishness, a will to preserve one’s self above all else, all are outdated “instincts” or learned traits passed on through the ages, that allowed humans to survive to this point, however, they ARE outdated, and are no longer needed. It is no longer necessary for merely the most able to climb the social ladder to survive, it is now important that, rather than working for the personal gain of each individual, it is time to focus on the survival of society, the survival of civilization, which is something that capitalism is not necessarily the best weapon of choice for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Blough on Dec 30, 2004 15:15:20 GMT -5
Communism is fundamentally and unavoidably flawed. There are a number of reasons why this is so, but most specifically are two factors: One, communism must be universal in order to function. As you yourself stated, communism is invariably destroyed when confronted with a capitalist system. The two cannot possibly coexist with any success, a lesson history teaches with a considerable degree of certainty. Those who believe firmly in the Marxist socialist philosophies consider world-wide communist revolution inevitable; while certainly not inevitable, it is a requirement for success. Two, communism requires us to act contrary to the most fundamental human drive and quality: ambition. Ambition is the surest candidate for setting apart men from beasts; we alone of the creatures of the world desire to achieve, to surpass, to succeed. All other creatures are content merely with survival. This defining human quality has led us to build and destroy civilizations, peoples, and ideologies. Even the very act of having conceived of communism in the first place is an ambitious act; for this drive motivates us to help our fellow man and society even as ourselves. Capitalism reigns supreme because it embraces this drive and encourages it to do so, providing immediate, measurable rewards for success. I think the last thing I'll address in this post is your characterization of communism as a whole, most specifically this line: Basic, very basic, definition is “a society in which, rather than for personal gain, the population works for the betterment of society.”<br> This too is flawed. The definition you put forth for communism is far too close to nationalism - indeed, you merely need to substitute the word "state" for "society" (not even necessary given that one's state is one's society) and you have the guiding principle of a nationalist culture exactly. The requirement of universality for communism precludes any sense of patriotism; as a result, dedication to one's society is counter-productive. A person in a communist nation with any kind of sense of personal gain(besides that of the glory found in increasing the power, weath, etc. of the society) is very destructive... This is another example of an incorrect approach to communist ideals; once again it describes nationalism. A communist has no need for power, and abhors the concept of wealth entirely; it is capitalism that is dedicated to the production of surplus and the acquisition of wealth. The communist ideal, furthermore, puts forth as the perfect system a society in which there is no government, the pure intentions of all members of society (and therefore everyone in the world) having rendered the need for such obsolete. Supposedly, at any rate. There will be no excess in a communist society - only that produced to suit the needs of the people. Indeed, technological development would likely slow and perhaps stop entirely, the motive to find efficient methods of accomplishing tasks buried under the need to have the people occupied. With all efforts not dedicated to subsistence-level production (for devoid of any thought of personal or national gain, there is no incentive to do more) likely devoted to leisurely activities, and the minimal involvement necessary for the society to govern itself collectively with this very simple itinerary to fulfill, society would effectively reach a point (once it has been acclimatized to its to condition) where it remains in cultural, technological, moral, and evolutionary stasis. If that isn't an abominable concept, I don't know what is. I guarantee such a thing would self-destruct. That is all I'll be addressing for the moment; next I'll address the heinous misconstruance of American morality in your above post, and probably after that we'll get into specifics regarding the ability of communism to deal with surplus (yes, it can and almost inevitably would produce it, no the society would not necessarily stagnate, I am aware, we're just waiting to come to it). |
|
|
|
Post by johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt on Jan 7, 2005 11:49:42 GMT -5
ok ok ok ok, you got me, i just wanted to throw this one out so as to put something in this forum...i wrote this long long ago, back when i considered myself a communist to the core :-P.
however, you did mis interpret a couple things.
what i was trying to point out was that, were a capitalistic nation, or just any capitalist person to exist within a communist society, it would be very destructive. i was putting that forward as an explanation as to why so many of the the socialist and communist nations of Asia fell, also largely fromt he intense economic pressure they were put under by the United states. remember, looking at the USSR, they tried to take on our booming after-war economy with their wartorn, decrepit, and, in most respects aged and obsolete technology. they were doomed to failure. but also look at what the bolshevics managed to accomplish. at the beginning of the 20th century, the USSR was a backwards tsarist nation, one of the last nations in europe to go throguh the industrial revolution, its population largely serfs. in the years following the revolution, a series of 5 year plans were implemented, effectively producing a viable, if a little clumsy(factories hundreds of miles away from any of the raw materials they needed) economy. *shrugs* if nothing else, i respect the socialists of Russia for managing to accomplish all that they did, it was quite a feat, and the world recognized it when they acknowledged that the USSR was the only real threat to the US after world war 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by ouch on Jan 7, 2005 13:05:53 GMT -5
Communism is fundamentally and unavoidably flawed. There are a number of reasons why this is so, but most specifically are two factors: One, communism must be universal in order to function. As you yourself stated, communism is invariably destroyed when confronted with a capitalist system. The two cannot possibly coexist with any success, a lesson history teaches with a considerable degree of certainty. Those who believe firmly in the Marxist socialist philosophies consider world-wide communist revolution inevitable; while certainly not inevitable, it is a requirement for success. Two, communism requires us to act contrary to the most fundamental human drive and quality: ambition. Ambition is the surest candidate for setting apart men from beasts; we alone of the creatures of the world desire to achieve, to surpass, to succeed. All other creatures are content merely with survival. This defining human quality has led us to build and destroy civilizations, peoples, and ideologies. Even the very act of having conceived of communism in the first place is an ambitious act; for this drive motivates us to help our fellow man and society even as ourselves. Capitalism reigns supreme because it embraces this drive and encourages it to do so, providing immediate, measurable rewards for success. I think the last thing I'll address in this post is your characterization of communism as a whole, most specifically this line: This too is flawed. The definition you put forth for communism is far too close to nationalism - indeed, you merely need to substitute the word "state" for "society" (not even necessary given that one's state is one's society) and you have the guiding principle of a nationalist culture exactly. The requirement of universality for communism precludes any sense of patriotism; as a result, dedication to one's society is counter-productive. This is another example of an incorrect approach to communist ideals; once again it describes nationalism. A communist has no need for power, and abhors the concept of wealth entirely; it is capitalism that is dedicated to the production of surplus and the acquisition of wealth. The communist ideal, furthermore, puts forth as the perfect system a society in which there is no government, the pure intentions of all members of society (and therefore everyone in the world) having rendered the need for such obsolete. Supposedly, at any rate. There will be no excess in a communist society - only that produced to suit the needs of the people. Indeed, technological development would likely slow and perhaps stop entirely, the motive to find efficient methods of accomplishing tasks buried under the need to have the people occupied. With all efforts not dedicated to subsistence-level production (for devoid of any thought of personal or national gain, there is no incentive to do more) likely devoted to leisurely activities, and the minimal involvement necessary for the society to govern itself collectively with this very simple itinerary to fulfill, society would effectively reach a point (once it has been acclimatized to its to condition) where it remains in cultural, technological, moral, and evolutionary stasis. If that isn't an abominable concept, I don't know what is. I guarantee such a thing would self-destruct. That is all I'll be addressing for the moment; next I'll address the heinous misconstruance of American morality in your above post, and probably after that we'll get into specifics regarding the ability of communism to deal with surplus (yes, it can and almost inevitably would produce it, no the society would not necessarily stagnate, I am aware, we're just waiting to come to it). |
|
|
|
Post by Drychnath on Jan 8, 2005 23:15:56 GMT -5
what i was trying to point out was that, were a capitalistic nation, or just any capitalist person to exist within a communist society, it would be very destructive. i was putting that forward as an explanation as to why so many of the the socialist and communist nations of Asia fell, also largely fromt he intense economic pressure they were put under by the United states. remember, looking at the USSR, they tried to take on our booming after-war economy with their wartorn, decrepit, and, in most respects aged and obsolete technology. they were doomed to failure. but also look at what the bolshevics managed to accomplish. at the beginning of the 20th century, the USSR was a backwards tsarist nation, one of the last nations in europe to go throguh the industrial revolution, its population largely serfs. in the years following the revolution, a series of 5 year plans were implemented, effectively producing a viable, if a little clumsy(factories hundreds of miles away from any of the raw materials they needed) economy. *shrugs* if nothing else, i respect the socialists of Russia for managing to accomplish all that they did, it was quite a feat, and the world recognized it when they acknowledged that the USSR was the only real threat to the US after world war 2. Yes, I understand that, but those accomplishments have nothing to do with communism. Any centralized government can do the same thing. In example, we can look at the same country, under the reign of Peter the Great. He dragged Czarist Russia kicking and screaming into the 18th century, and turned it into an official Empire. Trouble was, as soon as he died, they didn't advance one iota until...oh...mid-late 19th century? Crimean War? Likewise, we can examine the cases of Japan, Germany, and Italy. All of the Axis powers made incredible strides in their industrial capacity and military output in the interwar period. And Japan's advancement to its level of technology stands out as the most staggering of any example I can conveniently think of. Russia advanced a hundred years in industrial capacity about three decades; Japan's buildup was a century long, but it advanced two millennia in that time. And Japan is a resource-poor country, whereas Russia's natural resources are as close to limitless as a country can come. And, as I posted previously I would agree that the presence of a capitalist in a communist society would essentially destroy the system - further proof the ideology cannot function. Capitalism, by contrast, can function regardless of the ideological comoposition of those who live under it, again as history shows us. Also, just as an aside that isn't fully thought out, you could make the argument that capitalism succeeds so well because in its purest form, it is a zero-maintenance system. Communism, however, requires a great deal of attention and maintenance until such time as it becomes universal and the need for government is removed. And even then, a new capitalist system could and likely would spontaneously develop. The only resources invested in capitalism are to mitigate some of the extreme inequities could produce, namely by standardizing things (currency, taxation, labor laws, minimum wage, etc.). And the fact that governments now take efforts to do these things completely guts Marx's theory regarding the Revolution, which is provoked by this very same inequity. I submit that socialism, marxism, and communism are all merely ideological hiccups as a result of early stages of capitalism in which the inequities are most pronounced. Edit: And who's this fellow who merely quoted my entire post, out of curiosity? I feel I should state, simply as a suggestion, that it's a little easier to state agreement by typing something along the lines of 'I agree'. But that could just be me... |
|
|
|
Post by Pike on Feb 5, 2005 14:41:04 GMT -5
it dosent work
|
|
|
|
Post by AeroStrategos on Feb 11, 2006 13:27:50 GMT -5
As one who leans more towards a fascist ideology (please be careful - fascism is not Nazism just as communism is not a socialist dictatorship) I find the communist ideal particularly repugnant. But surprisingly, the more I talk with different kinds of people about their political views, the more I realize that even though I'm on the extreme right, I often have more in common with those on the extreme left than I do with the kind of spineless laissez-faire moderates who have allowed democracy to become synonymous with selfishness, ignorance, and the kind of corruption and decline not seen since the last centuries of ancient Rome. Insofar as communism acknowledges that the individual is subservient to his society, that the individual serves his society with discipline and sacrifice, and that the economic sphere needs planning and control, I applaud them. However, the notion that once want and war and government have been eradicated, people will be happy is just wrong. Happiness does not derive from economic well-being. Happiness should be found in the struggle, in seeing the final victory that your sacrifice and discipline in the face of obstacles like hardship and deprivation have wrought. Man cannot simply be placated with a higher standard of living; his life must have moral and spiritual significance. I believe that this is one of the main factors driving the growth of the religious extremism gripping our world today. It is the final repudiation of this materialistic philosophy that has been at the heart of the communist and democratic capitalist regimes that have dominated the world since they united in the second world war to destroy the one system of government that could threaten their very existence.
And if you are still reading after this long winded speech, kudos!
|
|
|
|
Post by johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt on Feb 15, 2006 17:12:59 GMT -5
I find more and more that i agree with you Adam, honestly, i can't claim to be a communist anymore, because i seriously cannot believe that the human race would be happy without conflict. we need it to focus our thoughts, give us a goal, provide competition.
that being said, could it be that we need to re-think our ideas about government all-together? until now governments have been established to provide for and protect their citizenry, or be apparatuses for expansion and imperialistic goals. my original thought is that a dictatorship is a good thing, capitalism can go blow it out its ass, however, i'm not so sure this is a good idea, capitalism is great in that it provides for competition within the society. the question is, is this the right kind, and can democracy support a capitalist government to its full capacity?
now, going along the thought process that humans need conflict to be happy, could we not establish a regulatory government, creating rules, tax laws, courts, etc, yet largely the states within it would be free to do as they please, up to and including fight amogst themselves. this would, in effect, be an extension of the feudal system.(if you haven't noticed, i'm thinking this out as i type it) now, the issue is, how do you prevent these rivalries from becoming so debilitating that it's impossible to reconcile them in order to present a unified foriegn policy. (paintball wars! no death, but infinte practice on battle field craziness and tactics...play with us june 3rd!)
anyway, so, in ordre to unify the globe, it needs to be, in effect, not unified at all, though the conflict would be regulated. even this seems to not satisfy...perhaps we would have to colonize another world in order to completely unify the globe, in this case, against their colony, perhaps later, against some alien empire. i am of the firm belief that humanity cannot be happy without conflict, however, in order for us to survive, we have to find a way to limit it to the extent that we don't destroy ourselves in internal wars. as soon as an empire is established that is globally powerful, it WILL fall apart through lack of vision, direction, and simple citizen boredom. what's the point of having a government to protect you from nothigin?
...anyway, not sure just now,e xactly what kind of government structure i support.
|
|
|
|
Post by AeroStrategos on Feb 20, 2006 20:54:26 GMT -5
Sure, people need conflict - but not within their own society. Feudal countries were weak in the fact that the leader had very little control over the entire country. Fighting within a society only divides it, but fighting another society can galvanize it.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt on Apr 10, 2008 21:46:42 GMT -5
a recent thought on this:
what we need is not regulated controlled conflict, but instead uncontrolled conflict on a limited scale. the United Nations and other similar organizations are slowly destroying our collective wills to fight, and, in so doing, are also destroying our need to think critically, as well as our desire to!
|
|
