A question to Communists:

[A Viking Yeti]

One method of ascending within the social unit is to attack the leader and force him to surrender to you.

This method is practiced in the wild all the time. Very few intelligent animals have truly egalitarian societies--groups are run by an alpha. How do the animals decide who gets to be the alpha? By fighting. Some animals, such as wolves, have a kind of game of "chicken" with little actual contact--but once in a while, contests for the throne get bloody.

Humans were the same way before we invented government. So it was really you who totally missed the point: that authority will either be enforced by a government, or will assert itself naturally.

No, once again, it was you... Communism, for the last f'n time, is not about political or social equality. It's about ECONOMIC equality, which is not mutually inclusive with absolute social or political equality. I don't think that absolute social equality will ever occur; there will always be the popular and the respected, but that doesn't mean the others need to starve.

In most U.S. elections, one political party generally earns more money from wealthy donors.

Which one?

No, you guessed wrong. It's not the Republicans. It's the Democrats!!!

Surprised? So was I. Quick side note, however: both parties generally make approximately the same amount of money when you tally up their final war chest totals in each election.


Further: take a look at all the policies the U.S. government has implemented against the will of rich people. Higher tax rates on rich people. Environmental laws. Laws against illegal immigration, thereby decreasing the pool of cheap labor for rich people to exploit. Large protests against both U.S. invasions of Iraq. In fact, large protests against lots of pro-rich-people policies, protests which seem immune to all rich-people efforts to squelch them.

Take a look at all the things in the world that go wrong for rich people, and you will see that rich people do not in fact control much of anything.

Well, on a side note, Bush had the largest amount of corporate funding of any presidential candidate in US history. More to the point though, both parties are essentially puppets of corporations. As long as campaign funds come overwhelmingly from business 'donations', voters will only see those candidates chosen by corporate executives.

Those policies are a result of popular protest and influence. You say this yourself in reference to Iraq. The point remains that the Iraq war happened, it was for monetary interests, and despite the largest number of protestors rallying at any one time in the history of the world (globally), the will of the people was essentially ignored in favor of corporate interests. After all, 6 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, by they own 3% of the US market, so we're not about to touch them. Further, your statements only show that the revolutionary/'radical' portions of the population win out in the end. That revolution, whether political or military, is usually won by the commoner not the elitist, and that it is consistently pushing to lessen the extremity in our country's income gap (which happens to be the second highest in the world).

 

[A Viking Yeti]

In general, this holds true. But with Communism, it doesn't apply.

Here's the problem: we want to stop rape from happening. Myself included--I think rape is one of the lowest and most disgusting crimes a living thing can commit. So, how do we stop it?

By force of law. If the rapist does not submit willingly, the police must subdue him. With pepper spray, with batons--or, if necessary, with guns.

And that's the problem with Communism. How do you protect Communism against those who would destroy it? By force of law--and by force of military arms. But Communism is all about a classless society. You cannot have authority in a Communist society. No society can survive without authority.

Therefore Communism is an exception to the general rule. It is impossible, and in trying to pursue it (this goes for you too, Behind_The_Mask), you are wasting your efforts and giving the Evil Capitalists free rein to run amok while you're off attacking windmills.

...When did Marx ever talk about anarcho-syndicalism? The abolition of central governance is not a part of communist theory, and certainly isn't necessary for an economically classless society. Maybe you should actually read some of Marx and Trotsky's work before you try to argue with it, eh? Anarcho-communism is supposed to be the end result... As in, a futuristic ideal, not a system to be implement now. Get off the authority problem... My statement holds true. You selectively consider certain aspects of human 'nature' to be impossible to change, whilst others are perfectly feasible and compose central parts of society. Contradiction...

 

[A Viking Yeti]

In a previous post, I listed a whole bunch of stuff that cannot have escaped your notice.

If rich people were really in control, we would not have environmental laws. All Greenpeace members would be under arrest--or dead. Middle East oil would be flowing freely into the West's gas pumps. The graduated tax system would not exist. Free health care in Europe would not exist.

The rich do not control. Plain and simple.

Well... That's what did happen before the various labor revolutions and revolts across the world. Labor day for instance... Were there environmental laws? Greenpeace? No... And the working-class got fed up with it. The only reason the will of the ruling class is not totally expressed in society is because they know that the working-class would crush them if they did. They need us working to make their profits, and strikes kinda' inhibit this. You would probably say they'd just suppress us, but the '30s showed that even barrages of bullets don't put us in our place. Once again, just helping prove the power the working-class has.

Oh, and if the rich didn't control anything, there wouldn't be a national bank capable of totally controlling inflation and the amount of currency present in our economy. It's a private company, and it's obviously acquired a lot of power. Further, every member of our government is in the upper bracket of the economy, and most receive considerable corporate donations, making them much wealthier. If a government composed of 'representatives' that are all very wealthy is not considered power in the hands of the wealthy, what is?

 

[A Viking Yeti]

You are making the assumption that rich people are emotionless, greedy bastards, which far from all are. I guess you reached that flase assumption by looking in the mirror.

You said the rich don't control much of anything, not the rich controls all. And, believe it or not, being rich actually gives you more power than if you were poor! Surprised?

I guess since you are a "greedy, emotionless bastard" you want to make us hardworking middle class believe that you are, in fact, just as powerless as we are. Which is wrong.

I'd say the power to lay off thousands of employees and totally destabilize if not destroy their lives is quite a bit of power. Of course, a business' CEO could do just that, sell all the remaining product, and live off of the interest for the next couple... Centuries. However, the fact that they do not not only shows that they're not heartless bastards, but also that they defy their 'nature' since they could probably make a lot more money that way if they so chose. Not the strongest argument for it though, since it seems a little ridiculous for someone to do something that horribly irresponsible.

 

[A Viking Yeti]

This is what people do when they've lost the argument.

Somehow I don't find it surprising that you are acting as such then. If the rich didn't control, every car would have a diesel engine in it, burning hemp oil.

 

[Traitorfish]

This is what people do when they've lost the argument.

It's also what people do when they've realised that there is no argument, as the person they are talking to appears to experience an entirely separate reality than they do, thus rendering any exchange utterly pointless.
You can put me down as whichever one you prefer.

 

[Traitorfish]

...When did Marx ever talk about anarcho-syndicalism?

Regularly. That was pretty much what he meant by "Communism".

The abolition of central governance is not a part of communist theory, and certainly isn't necessary for an economically classless society.

It's actually pretty core to the whole idea of a Marxist Communist state.

Much as I disagree with Basket Case, you're still wrong on those points...

 

[LightFang]

Somehow I don't find it surprising that you are acting as such then. If the rich didn't control, every car would have a diesel engine in it, burning hemp oil.

What? Why...? What does this have to do with anything?

 

[Impaler[WrG]]

When Communists look around and see the great that Capitalism has done, how can't they support it? Yes, there is poverty, but that is an unfortunate part of life. With all of the great things we have here and all of the people in America making more money than anyone else in the world and having enough to buy food and luxuries, how can they still not support it.

Our current standard of living is due entirely to the consumption of Fossil Fuels and resent technological innovations dependent on those energy resources. capitalism and communism are methods for dividing up that surplus but neither is fundamentally what creates it.

 

[BasketCase]

And before fossil fuels existed.....?

Human living standards have been steadily improving throughout history. Fossil fuels are merely a convenient tool. What was it that allowed us to gain use of that tool (in this case, oil)?

That reveals the two things that are the actual propellants of human development: new ideas, and hard work. The oil was always there--we humans had to examine it, figure out what we could do with it, and then put a lot of work into getting it out of the ground.

New ideas can only be properly encouraged in a free and democratic state--where thinkers are free to state their opinions without getting shot (or verbally incinerated here in CFC........)

Hard work requires incentive and reward. Blab all you like about human compassion and sense of duty--in a free state you can't force people to care about each other, you have to allow them to care or not care as they choose. You can't force people to be good Commies. And when you have any kind of system in place that rewards people for work, you get what?


Capitalism.

 

[greenpeace]

Hard work requires incentive and reward.

Perhaps we should shoot anybody who doesn't work hard enough, after all thats great incentive, right? Oh wait, even better we can starve them and take away priveledges from them so that we can save on bullets. Oh wait, if someone can't find desirable work in society because they were never educated or other circumstances out of their control they will be starved to death if they don't do work against their will.
And of course, we need to offer positive incentive also, otherwise we wouldn't have nearly enough prostitution, drug dealing, thievery, and other such great jobs for people to do who would have no real reason to do otherwise.
rolleyes
Seriously though, the only incentive society should give people doesn't need to be given, for it is natural; and that is for them to do their goals in life (unless their goal is to harm others in which case society has the incentive to help them find non-harmful alternative goals and prevent harm from being done). Of course, people will have to work against their will (or at least their direct will) in order to prevent things like death by starvation, death by fire, death by unsanitary conditions (disease), and other such things, but that incentive comes naturally and does not need to be artificially imposed.

Blab all you like about human compassion and sense of duty--in a free state you can't force people to care about each other, you have to allow them to care or not care as they choose. You can't force people to be good Commies. And when you have any kind of system in place that rewards people for work, you get what?

Who says we need human compassion? All we need to do is set up a society in which acting in your own self-interest is beneficiary and contributes to a more positive world. Such a society as I have previously described allows this. It allows it because there aren't any incentives except the incentive of pursuing your goals. Also, since you can pursue your goals much more easily if others allow you, it behooves you and everyone else to help others pursue goals that are not harmful. It is more complex however when you want to give others incentives to help you pursue your own goals. It must be established at the begining of the formation of a society and be supported throughout that bribery (offering positive and negative artificial incentive) is harmful since it is not initially obvious. So basically, unless you think that compassion is the ability to see that offering artificial incentive is ultimately harmful, than there is no need for compassion for the society to function.

That is not to say, however there will be no compassion. Compassion in such a society will be much more natural since the amount of conflicting interest is greatly reduced (if not erradicated) and there is no real incentive to do harm unless you naturally want to do so (in which case society has the incentive to help you find reasons why not to do harm so that you may eventually reform yourself).

That is also not to say,that people will all of a sudden become perfect angels, its just that the incentive to do harm is so greatly reduced that people can more easily see the reason in not harming others.

 

[GenMarshall]

Why do Communist brainwash naive people?

(/me asking as an ex-commie)

 

[Godwynn]

Why do Communist brainwash naive people?

(/me asking as an ex-commie)

Any naive person can be brainwashed to any particular ideology.

 

[Mr_Fusty]

It is not just naive people who are brainwashed. In fact, only a very few people are brainwashed - just made into supporters of a particular opinion. The majority of people who are brainwashed are ones who are brought up in a completly controlled enviorment - such as in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR.

Children's minds are supple and thirsty for infomation - most of their questioning of the world around them stems from holes or inconsistancies in their current infomation. If you offer a 10-year old child a ready-made idelogy that explains everything, without offering them the option of comparison, you will have a happy convert. It will prove difficult to break them out of it in later life.

 

[greenpeace]

Why do Communist brainwash naive people?

(/me asking as an ex-commie)

Well, the society I described (which some may classify as communistic) does not allow harm, and brainwashing is pyschological (sp?) harm, so it would simply not be allowed. Of course, just because its not allowed doesn't mean it won't happen, but the society would have no incentive to brainwash because reality would easily be enough to convince people that the society is more free. So in effect, unless you consider teaching unbiased reality brainwashing, there would be no need for brainwashing and any brainwashing that would occur would be stopped because there is definite natural incentive to stop it (that natural incentive is, of vourse, that brainwashing is tool for people to gain power and since that inhibits others freedom they will want it stop, even ifd they don't have morals).

If your asking about why societies brainwash in general, I agree with the general arguement that there is no justified reason. The only reason it does occur is fairly obvious, it is much easier to control the masses if they are brainwashed into complete obedience than to control a free-thinking society. It especially applies to the brand of communism that I refer to as authoritarian communism (like the USSR or Mao's communist China). Do you think Stalin would want completely free-thinking people who had ample access to all the horrible information regarding his regime? Do you think he would want people to be anything other than near robots serving the empire he had power over? I say that is obviously not the case.

Of course, brainwashing isn't completely for totalitarian regimes like Stalin's. Any society where there is a group who has power over others has the incentive to brainwash. For example, wouldn't you agree that a president who is power hungry (and there is nothing to insure a president from being power hungry) would have incentive to brainwash. Of course, American presidents can't do anything on the scale of Stalin because of limited terms, a fairly free press, speech, religion, petition, assembly, (I remember all 5, yay! too bad most americans can't) , checks and balances, etc. But still there is definently brainwashing to a (somewhat alarming) degree in modern society. Some of it is built in and can't really be removed without major change. For example, children are constantly exposed to money and see that if they want something they can get it through money and also because of advertisement and general pressure from society it becomes hard for a child to see why they wouldn't want money. Unless of course, their parents teach them all of the negative sides of modern society. But not only is that very often disregarded by parents, it is often against unwritten rules called political correctness (not that PC is completely wrong). For example, its considered wrong to tell a child that through money people (generally women) allow others to have sex with them against their direct will in an act that would be considered rape if it weren't for the material gain. Or that people will murder their parents if they can get inheritence soner. Or that people will produce vast quantities of substance called heroin, cocain, or in general drugs, and sell them to people knowing that they could easily be destroying the others life and do nothing to convince them that there is a better way because of the material gain involved. All of that is probably not readily available information for most children and is generally kept from them until they are old enough to accept, or even want it.

 

[BasketCase]

Seriously though, the only incentive society should give people doesn't need to be given, for it is natural; and that is for them to do their goals in life (unless their goal is to harm others in which case society has the incentive to help them find non-harmful alternative goals and prevent harm from being done).

That one boldfaced word is where your entire vision of human nature falls apart.

See? We do need to provide incentives to citizens. You write this whole post about how we don't, and then you shoot yourself in the ass with one word.


So, you agree that society needs to provide some kind of incentive to steer everybody in the right direction--since, as you said, compassion is neither reliable nor really necessary. And, as you also said (through some very well-written but kind of overly-long sarcasm ), shooting anybody who doesn't work hard enough is not an option.

Now, I have no objection to shooting anybody who tries to kidnap somebody's child, or commit rape, but in general, the incentive needs to take the form of a carrot--errrrr.....I kind of don't like vegetarians, so let's say "cake" instead. The incentive needs to be a cake instead of a stick, we agree there too.

Where I and you differ (in fact, where I and just about every Communist wing nut on the planet differ) is on what kind of cake to offer. I'll cut right to the chase: all the blabbing about non-material cake, working together because it makes sense to keep everybody around you happy so they'll help you, and just generally depending on the better nature of people, is bullcrap. Any group of wild animals proves that--they have a strong incentive to help each other in their own self-interest, yet for some strange reason, wild animals attack and kill each other all the time. Also, there are more than a few people out there who are simply not mentally wired the right way to make your work. The cake needs to be physical and solid so as to provide incentive to as many people as possible.

In other words, the cake must not be a lie. (Sorry, couldn't resist that one--Portal kicks ass)

And when the real and material cake is offered, what kind of system do you have?

Capitalism.

 

[Traitorfish]

Any group of wild animals proves that--they have a strong incentive to help each other in their own self-interest, yet for some strange reason, wild animals attack and kill each other all the time.

But humans are capable of empathy, and so morality. Animals aren't. That's where the difference lies.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

When Communists look around and see the great that Capitalism has done, how can't they support it? Yes, there is poverty, but that is an unfortunate part of life. With all of the great things we have here and all of the people in America making more money than anyone else in the world and having enough to buy food and luxuries, how can they still not support it.

Thank you for letting me know.

I'm not a Communist, but I can suggest an objection to Capitalism:

Spoiler :

two million plastic beverage bottles, the number used in the US every five minutes.

What's the incentive to clean this up? What's the incentive to produce more like it?

---

How, exactly, are you defining Capitalism? How much regulation? How much enforcement of a long-term view?

 

[Phlegmak]

I'm not a Communist, but I can suggest an objection to Capitalism:

Spoiler :

What's the incentive to clean this up? What's the incentive to produce more like it?

---

How, exactly, are you defining Capitalism? How much regulation? How much enforcement of a long-term view?

Where are those photos from? Where in the world is that location? I'd like to visit it.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Where are those photos from? Where in the world is that location? I'd like to visit it.

It's part of Chris Jordan's
Running the Numbers
An American Self-Portrait.

No location:

Statistics can feel abstract and anesthetizing, making it difficult to connect with and make meaning of 3.6 million SUV sales in one year, for example, or 2.3 million Americans in prison, or 410,000 paper cups used every fifteen minutes. This project visually examines these vast and bizarre measures of our society, in large intricately detailed prints assembled from thousands of smaller photographs. The underlying desire is to emphasize the role of the individual in a society that is increasingly enormous, incomprehensible, and overwhelming.

(emphasis mine)

I took it out of context because I'm cynical of CFC, and I didn't want a derailment about elective breast augmentation surgeries.