Topic: CVD -Political Discussion

[cecil-kain]

globalist-socialist-secularist-communist-capitalist.

pretty damn ardent about that. i'm only capitalist in so much as I believe people should have the freedom to do what they like so long as it does not negatively affect or impact the people at large: it is the negative side-effects of capitalism that i oppose, that i go to socialism and communism for; the fact that wealth ignorantly concentrates towards the top, the fact that people are intrinsically selfish to some degree and will do what benefits them rather than what benefits their consumers or people. Ideally, government and market would be two separate sectors, with the latter ruled by - but not necessarily inhibited by - government. the role of government would be to create a basis for life, to enable people to seek out and live their own life of their own accord, because nature will never do such a thing and nor will unrestrained capitalism. a strong public education system, a strong public healthcare system (both of these in conjunction with private alternatives, if people so wish), child labor laws, anything that will enable the individual to escape the confines of circumstance and to press forward. essentially, government is a counter-balance.

i find the idea of patriotism ignorant in the same way i find dogmatic faith ignorant, and any country that would seek to rise above others not for the benefit of them but for the benefit of its ego deserves ruin.

When people have trouble figuring out the Capitalist Vs Communist issue.  I can sum it up in one question.  "Do you believe you have an absolute right to earn personal wealth and to own private property?"  A true Communist will not answer yes to either question.

[Joachim]

True in what sense? Acknowledging the flawed present does not necessarily dictate ones perspectives on what ought to be, or what could or should be in the future; these flaws (greed, desire for wealth and ownership) could be viewed as superficial weaknesses; potentially insurmountable in the present, under our current culture and our current circumstance, but not insurmountable in the long run.

Would a true communist be one that wants it right now, despite the nature of Communism being something that gradually and willingly evolved out of Socialism, which came as a correction to Capitalism; or would a true communist be one who wants Communism to come about "naturally", as evolution?

As far as I go, I can answer neither yes nor no to that question. I have a personal desire for ownership, but at the same time in a grander sense I find the idea that we can "own" land, or things (particularly when others must do without) kind of repugnant.

[cecil-kain]

True in what sense? Acknowledging the flawed present does not necessarily dictate ones perspectives on what ought to be, or what could or should be in the future; these flaws (greed, desire for wealth and ownership) could be viewed as superficial weaknesses; potentially insurmountable in the present, under our current culture and our current circumstance, but not insurmountable in the long run.

Would a true communist be one that wants it right now, despite the nature of Communism being something that gradually and willingly evolved out of Socialism, which came as a correction to Capitalism; or would a true communist be one who wants Communism to come about "naturally", as evolution?

As far as I go, I can answer neither yes nor no to that question. I have a personal desire for ownership, but at the same time in a grander sense I find the idea that we can "own" land, or things (particularly when others must do without) kind of repugnant.

Socialism and Communism are very closely related.  You cannot achieve Communism without establishing a Socialist order first.  For the sake of our discussion I'm defining Communism from the economic standpoint.  Capitalists believe they have an absolute right to work, earn wealth, and to own personal property.  Communists believe all work should directly benefit the state, instead of private employers or individual workers --therefore all wealth, and property rights ultimately belong to the state.  On the other hand, Socialism in itself doesn't deny the Capitalists their private property rights, but more subtley will tax the wealthy more heavily to provide public benefits --various goods and services for the poor (for example).  Clearly, you can maintain private property rights, but still spread the wealth under a social-capitalist system.  Communism simply takes socialism to a whole new level.  "from each according to their ability, and to each according to their need"  IMO true Communism is slavery to the state --which of course leads into statism --and so far nobody seems to like that ideology much...

[Joachim]

I don't see what you're trying to say or argue here.  You're not saying anything that I'm not, but you're posing it as some kind of correction or some kind of disagreement; and all this really does is lead into a misunderstood criticism of Communism.

A state is not part of the definition of communism: this is evident in the fact that there are brands of it that actually do without the concept of a state. The state exists in most (read: most) brands of communism because it is necessary to exist as a mediator; and in these cases, there is a stark contrast between the state in communism versus the negative connotations of the state in statism. And even then, this mediation usually comes about as a creative weakness or necessity within the confines of a flawed execution. By this, I mean that the state exists as a mediator because society and circumstance have not reached the point where communism can even come about as intended, thus they envision a powerful state to try and overcompensate. It is folly to believe that communism is possible in the contemporary age, where things we are still driven by things like necessity. Communism, in its truest, purest form, cannot come about until our material and productive forces have reached a point where people may be freed from wage-labor as slavery, and where work becomes not a matter of survival but a matter of expression and desire.

[cecil-kain]

I don't see what you're trying to say or argue here.  You're not saying anything that I'm not, but you're posing it as some kind of correction or some kind of disagreement; and all this really does is lead into a misunderstood criticism of Communism.

A state is not part of the definition of communism: this is evident in the fact that there are brands of it that actually do without the concept of a state. The state exists in most (read: most) brands of communism because it is necessary to exist as a mediator; and in these cases, there is a stark contrast between the state in communism versus the negative connotations of the state in statism. And even then, this mediation usually comes about as a creative weakness or necessity within the confines of a flawed execution. By this, I mean that the state exists as a mediator because society and circumstance have not reached the point where communism can even come about as intended, thus they envision a powerful state to try and overcompensate. It is folly to believe that communism is possible in the contemporary age, where things we are still driven by things like necessity. Communism, in its truest, purest form, cannot come about until our material and productive forces have reached a point where people may be freed from wage-labor as slavery, and where work becomes not a matter of survival but a matter of expression and desire.

In hindsight I may have mischaracterized Communism as Statism.  Communism is merely a form of economics.  However,  the economics of Communism require more centralized management than Capitalism for some of the very reasons you point out.  Communism motivates people by bartering with the necessities of life --someone needs to be in charge of rationing the food, health care, and housing --it just so happens the state comes into fulfilling that role...

[Joachim]

When that is an issue. As I stated, communism is intended to come about when we have reached a point where that is essentially no longer a problem. The things that would now be perceived as necessities would no longer be necessities, there would be no struggle to keep or maintain them. It would be a fundamentally different society, brought on by a fundamentally different cultural and likely scientific context.

[Mooning Freddy]

The Soviet Union was a society as closest to real communism as it ever got. Pseudo-communistic dictatorships like the ones in Cuba and North Korea should be ashamed to call themselves communists. Their leaders are corrupted, filthy-rich tyrants. That's something that cannot be said about any Soviet General Secretary except Stalin. Plus, none of them were all-powerful.

I always wonder how living in the USSR used to be in the 70's-80's when my parents tell me about how they lived back then.
It sounds a bit funny to me when my mom says that a factory worker in there actually made MORE money than the manager of the factory he worked in. But that's socialistic logic- the worker is doing physical work, while the manger is not.
Also, being unemployed was illegal. That's right. If the government caught you doing nothing, you were punished, and then assigned with a job.
So if you walk the streets of a big city in Russia, and see all the drunks and hobos on the sidewalks, just ask a senior citizen how it was back then, and he'll say: "Hell, back in my days those streets were clean, because all the human waste f**kin had jobs."  

[cecil-kain]

When that is an issue. As I stated, communism is intended to come about when we have reached a point where that is essentially no longer a problem. The things that would now be perceived as necessities would no longer be necessities, there would be no struggle to keep or maintain them. It would be a fundamentally different society, brought on by a fundamentally different cultural and likely scientific context.

Fair enough.  Let us consider food, for example.  What would a world where food is "not necessary" or "not a problem" look like?  Are we talking about engineering a human that doesn't need to eat, or are we talking about engineering an abundance of food beyond our comprehension?  Let's forget for a moment the technicalities of how we get there....  Who would control such technology and what would motivate them to share it?  And finally --what prevents them from abusing the power of their position?

The Soviet Union was a society as closest to real communism as it ever got. Pseudo-communistic dictatorships like the ones in Cuba and North Korea should be ashamed to call themselves communists. Their leaders are corrupted, filthy-rich tyrants. That's something that cannot be said about any Soviet General Secretary except Stalin. Plus, none of them were all-powerful.

I always wonder how living in the USSR used to be in the 70's-80's when my parents tell me about how they lived back then.
It sounds a bit funny to me when my mom says that a factory worker in there actually made MORE money than the manager of the factory he worked in. But that's socialistic logic- the worker is doing physical work, while the manger is not.
Also, being unemployed was illegal. That's right. If the government caught you doing nothing, you were punished, and then assigned with a job.
So if you walk the streets of a big city in Russia, and see all the drunks and hobos on the sidewalks, just ask a senior citizen how it was back then, and he'll say: "Hell, back in my days those streets were clean, because all the human waste f**kin had jobs."  

That's funny.  In America, we had our Unemployed a paycheck --for a little while while anyways...

[Sumac]

That's an interesting position --Anarchists are generally more extreme than Libertarians in opposing socialist intrusions into their personal lives.  Anarchy has always been about the supremacy of the individual over the state.  Modern Anarchy is primarily obsessed with international conspiracies to establish a centralized World Government (New World Order)

Well, that's how I roll.
On one hand I want to live in pecaefull and powerfull state, where I can live quite life and be sure that state protects me from bandits and terrorists and I always can find good job. The state where I can be proud that I am citizen of this country. The state where I can be sure about what will happen tomorrow.
On the other hand I want freedom. I want to go anywhere, live as indepedent human being, do not exist as a part of the system (be it system of the state or corporate one). To live, not to serve.
I still couldn't come to conclusion what I want more. I think time will tell.

That's something that cannot be said about any Soviet General Secretary except Stalin. Plus, none of them were all-powerful.

I honestly disagree.
All soviet leaders after Stalin were more or less just figureheads. People who surrounded them wield a real power and there were tonnes of intrigues. It doesn't sound differently form USA I think. But USSR tryed to create illusion that Soviet leaders are all powerfull. At least that what I think.
As for Stalin, I don't think he was corrupted. He was an ingenious dictator, obedient to only his own will (and whims). Like Peter the First in Russia's ealier history.

Also, being unemployed was illegal. That's right. If the government caught you doing nothing, you were punished, and then assigned with a job.
So if you walk the streets of a big city in Russia, and see all the drunks and hobos on the sidewalks, just ask a senior citizen how it was back then, and he'll say: "Hell, back in my days those streets were clean, because all the human waste f**kin had jobs." 

I've heard about that. I think it was right thing to do. For example if you lived in Moscow and didn't have a job you were forced to move on behind the city in the region.
Bad thing about paychecks is that jobless people could abuse that system, so they will live for money of the actually working people.