Ask a red

[Yeekim]

First of all, my apologies for cropping your post, but since RRR already answered the rest satisfactory, I see no harm in it.

That was alright, and I appreciate your answer.

However, a certain rotation of tasks will be beneficial here.

...would create a problem of efficiency for that society. As I said, it is a terrible waste to send a surgeon scrubbing streets.

The problem will also be mitigated by the fact that one might suppose that in the process towards a classless society, people's attitudes will have changed. In other words, it is partly a pedagogical matter.

I agree that if communism is ever to come into being, a major shift in people's attitudes is required. However, you are becoming dangerously close to saying that something which would objectively be a problem can be mitigated by brainwashing people into disregarding it. Watch out here.

To keep this legal, I'd ask another more hypothetical question:

Would you agree that when comparing two systems of economy, the one which, ceteris paribus, gives both higher income per capita and higher mode/median of income of individuals is superior and preferable to another? (Kind of utilitarian philosophy here.)
And by extension: if it could be proven that capitalism wins this comparison (I agree that it is and likely never will be possible to get quite ceteris paribus comparison), would you still prefer communism?

 

[Richard Cribb]

Explainify!

There is a qualitive difference between capitalism and socialism in that the first mentioned gives priority to economics, and the latter mentioned to politics. This means in extension that for capitalism human demands is the most important, for socialism human needs. It should also be pointed out that economics is nothing much more than an ideology designed to legitimate the privileges of the ruling class; when did you hear last time a mainstream economist arguing for the need of cutting the profits for the capitalists?
Consequently only a socialist system will be able to secure good satisfactory healthcare for every member of society, since in such a system you get the treatment you need, disregarding your purchasing power. Furthermore, such a system will, for a number of reasons, be better in preventive healthcare, something that sometimes seem to be forgotten these days. On top of that, you avoid different actors which will be interested in making profit on people's health like insurance companies, farmaceutical corporations etc.
Just look at the real world. Cuba, a very poor country and a deformed socialist state has a healthcare system which most people will have to admit is quite impressive, while the unhistorically comparably wealthy USA is not exactly great. Now imagine what Cuba would be able to do with the ressources the USA controls, or what a socialist USA could do...

That was alright, and I appreciate your answer.

...would create a problem of efficiency for that society. As I said, it is a terrible waste to send a surgeon scrubbing streets.

Perhaps. But perhaps it could be quite effective. Perhaps the surgeon, living in an affluent society would have a lot of time not performing surgery and possessing enough community spirit and gratitude towards the society that gave him the opportunities to cultivate his talents would gladly perform such a task once in a while. Perhaps capitalist society, which put a number of obstacles in the road for the less privileged wastes human talents much more. Think of it.

I agree that if communism is ever to come into being, a major shift in people's attitudes is required. However, you are becoming dangerously close to saying that something which would objectively be a problem can be mitigated by brainwashing people into disregarding it. Watch out here.

I don't know if I am the one to watch out here really.
I rather think that it is counterproductive to make tendentious assumptions. I only pointed out that every social organization will necessarily lead to a change in people's mindsets and those who are in charge in any sort of society will also try to impose their values on its citizens. In traditional society one had priests and artists performing this task. Nowadays we have dominant media, economists (the clergy of our time) and marketing companies. Of course, you may say that this is brainwashing too, but then the point is moot.

To keep this legal, I'd ask another more hypothetical question:

Would you agree that when comparing two systems of economy, the one which, ceteris paribus, gives both higher income per capita and higher mode/median of income of individuals is superior and preferable to another? (Kind of utilitarian philosophy here.)
And by extension: if it could be proven that capitalism wins this comparison (I agree that it is and likely never will be possible to get quite ceteris paribus comparison), would you still prefer communism?

Yes I would. Apart from that I consider it highly unlikely that capitalism would come out on top here, it doesn't address the basic contradiction in society. Thus it would not be sustainable.

 

[philippe]

I once adressed the issue of "loft-socialists" who work together with other parties, dropped their program for posts and are now also are pro-centrist and certain right-wing stances when it's opportunistic to be so. I hoped I once would get a reply between the grassroot-socialist-democratic movements popping up in response to these "sell-outs". Alas I never got a reply, but so I went on to read a book by Pol de Witte who was a local founder of the Belgian socialist party, a member of the internationale, and tried to form a communist party in the USA, of course without much succes. In his book he writes that: "only the trappists (a kind of monk) live in a society of equalness, but all they long for is death" in the context, that socialism doesn't seems to be truly viable if it tries to run in the system it's trying to change.

In his book he also writes that certain elements of the socialist party of that time turned sides and became party-leaders, without any scrupules, and only started to care about mandates, and having areas of influence.

In a reaction to this, de Witte wrote several pamflets and a book on the history of "de vooruit", which ostracied him in WWI becuase the leader of the socialist party hindered him and cooperated with the Germans in an attempt to stop him.

So, what I make as an conclusion that a truly socialist party, is a contradictio in terminis. It seems to me that since "socialists" in the party, are also poeple, who try and achieve superiority over others, (as is in every human's nature)

It's only as soon as poeple can cast off that desire for influence, that a viable socialist party can exist that remains uncorrupted, but of course this is an unachievable thing, becuase poeple are well, poeple.

So, now we are with a party that isn't socialist at all, it works together with the big companies, they have mandates in banks, they have festive banquets and when I see the daughter of such a minister raising her fist while dressed in an elegant expensive red dress, then you know, that the party is intellectualy braindead.

So, what can a proper socialist-democratic do then?

Vote on a fringe party in which your vote is wasted, or trying to change the party from within, which is a feeble and unrealisable attempt anyway?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You know the answer to that Phil: Revolution!

 

[Richard Cribb]

I once adressed the issue of "loft-socialists" who work together with other parties, dropped their program for posts and are now also are pro-centrist and certain right-wing stances when it's opportunistic to be so. I hoped I once would get a reply between the grassroot-socialist-democratic movements popping up in response to these "sell-outs". Alas I never got a reply, but so I went on to read a book by Pol de Witte who was a local founder of the Belgian socialist party, a member of the internationale, and tried to form a communist party in the USA, of course without much succes. In his book he writes that: "only the trappists (a kind of monk) live in a society of equalness, but all they long for is death" in the context, that socialism doesn't seems to be truly viable if it tries to run in the system it's trying to change.

In his book he also writes that certain elements of the socialist party of that time turned sides and became party-leaders, without any scrupules, and only started to care about mandates, and having areas of influence.

In a reaction to this, de Witte wrote several pamflets and a book on the history of "de vooruit", which ostracied him in WWI becuase the leader of the socialist party hindered him and cooperated with the Germans in an attempt to stop him.

So, what I make as an conclusion that a truly socialist party, is a contradictio in terminis. It seems to me that since "socialists" in the party, are also poeple, who try and achieve superiority over others, (as is in every human's nature)

It's only as soon as poeple can cast off that desire for influence, that a viable socialist party can exist that remains uncorrupted, but of course this is an unachievable thing, becuase poeple are well, poeple.

So, now we are with a party that isn't socialist at all, it works together with the big companies, they have mandates in banks, they have festive banquets and when I see the daughter of such a minister raising her fist while dressed in an elegant expensive red dress, then you know, that the party is intellectualy braindead.

So, what can a proper socialist-democratic do then?

Vote on a fringe party in which your vote is wasted, or trying to change the party from within, which is a feeble and unrealisable attempt anyway?

First of all, my apologies for neglecting you, that was certainly not my intention but as I explained in the OP sometimes even the great Homer nods...
Your question is good, relevant but unfortunately very difficult to give one answer to as it is situational. It would perhaps be of not little use if you did explain properly what your own political stance, as I did notice on atleast one occasion a political statement of yours which was naive at best. What is your political goals? What are your vision?
As far as voting goes, I have personally always voted for what you a bit pejoratively call fringe parties. This is because I agree with the man who was arguably greater socialist ever in that it is better to vote for something you want and not get it, than to vote for something you don't want and not get it. And I don't believe in any Gerstein-line to get rid of this rotten system. I am also bloody patient.
Also keep in mind that politics is about more than just casting your vote every odd year. Partaking in different organizations for instance, or different kind of actions devoted to one issue. Union activism. All sorts of building alliances of progressives and potential progressives.

 

[@N1k1T0$]

Great thread . What can today's world do and individual parties or states do , to reach a future communist state ?

 

[REDY]

Shoot 90 percents of greedy society should help.

 

[FredLC]

So, what I make as an conclusion that a truly socialist party, is a contradictio in terminis. It seems to me that since "socialists" in the party, are also poeple, who try and achieve superiority over others, (as is in every human's nature)

It's only as soon as poeple can cast off that desire for influence, that a viable socialist party can exist that remains uncorrupted, but of course this is an unachievable thing, becuase poeple are well, poeple.

Oh, yes, the good old "socialism is against human nature" argument. Haven't I addressed this extensively in my response post? I feel like Sam Harris, complaining that right after he proved extensively that the accusation thet "hitler was an atheist" is wrong, in his "The End of Faith", people immediatly wrote back to him claiming the very same thing.

I guess that, like Sam Harris, I have to acknowledge that this will never go away. Granted, I'm much less commited to this cause than he is to his.

Still, as the old adage goes, "politics is the art of the possible"; this is true to communist and capitalist ideologies both. Hence, just as food for thought, let me exemplify: capitalist politicians are also individuals who want to seek their own wealthy; however, they achieve their mandates by tricking a whole bunch of people that they will work for the common good.

Mutatis mutandis, isn't this the exactly same contradiction you diagnosed in communist-oriented parties?

So, what can a proper socialist-democratic do then?

Vote on a fringe party in which your vote is wasted, or trying to change the party from within, which is a feeble and unrealisable attempt anyway?

I could never understand the "wasted vote" argument. IMHO, votes are political statements of agreement, in which a person supports a certain consolidation of propositions. Therefore, a vote is never "wasted", unless it's given without propoer thought. Only political idiocy is to be shamed, not political minority.

Change your party, or grow the fringe party into a major one. Either way is fine, and voting is a step towards the consolidation of the propositions you find fit.

Regards .

 

[@N1k1T0$]

Still, as the old adage goes, "politics is the art of the possible"; this is true to communist and capitalist ideologies both. Hence, just as food for thought, let me exemplify: capitalist politicians are also individuals who want to seek their own wealthy; however, they achieve their mandates by tricking a whole bunch of people that they will work for the common good.

Mutatis mutandis, isn't this the exactly same contradiction you diagnosed in communist-oriented parties?

And my conclusions of this is that humans should not blame the human nature for the natural corruption that would happen in any system.

Hense a capitalist may have the same ideals than a communist and both be selfish uncaring for the common good but because one system of the two is fundamentally better , it does not matter . What the capitalist thinks is irrelevant he is just a part of a machine , a system and he is just as good at the system it self.

Therefor one can not claim that the communist system strives for perfection or could be great if Humanity would change ,etc. A system is only good if it works.

I am sorry if i am threadjacking but i see it in the way of If something works then it is good. if one creates a communist model that is better than the capitalist then i approve it. No ideology 100% pragmatism.

 

[FredLC]

And my conclusions of this is that humans should not blame the human nature for the natural corruption that would happen in any system.

Hense a capitalist may have the same ideals than a communist and both be selfish uncaring for the common good but because one system of the two is fundamentally better , it does not matter . What the capitalist thinks is irrelevant he is just a part of a machine , a system and he is just as good at the system it self.

Therefor one can not claim that the communist system strives for perfection or could be great if Humanity would change ,etc. A system is only good if it works.

I am sorry if i am threadjacking but i see it in the way of If something works then it is good. if one creates a communist model that is better than the capitalist then i approve it. No ideology 100% pragmatism.

Well; I suppose we could start an argument about systemic ethics. I am completely positive that we have to have pragmatism in mind, or all good intentions sink... but I don't think 100% pragmatism is desirable. We humans are not mathematically precise beings, we have to accommodate some aspirations.

There is a human project to be pursuit. There is more to society than how much money it is making. The trick is to find the right balance.

Nonetheless, I feel this is a subject for a different thread...

Regards .

 

[philippe]

First of all, my apologies for neglecting you, that was certainly not my intention but as I explained in the OP sometimes even the great Homer nods...

Don't worry,i'm not angry for that. (and if you would resemble Homer you at least win in typing blind!

Your question is good, relevant but unfortunately very difficult to give one answer to as it is situational. It would perhaps be of not little use if you did explain properly what your own political stance, as I did notice on atleast one occasion a political statement of yours which was naive at best. What is your political goals? What are your vision?

Well I like to see myself as a social-democrat with very social liberal stances. I voted myself for the socialists and for a fringe party,yes(4% is not a lot, heh?) so, the sentence: to vote for a fringe party is a vote wasted, not from the perspective who would never vote for one, but one who did and is not patient.

What I' for is a more egalitarian world, in which countries are regionalised so direct democracy becomes possible and then work as much as possible with that, but also let there be a representative government who deals with the interregional affairs in an European Union.

I first thought this idea was horrendous, until I had a discussion with a politician, a centrist figure and a very smart and developed man. I had great fun and learned a lot with his economics and law classes. I also became more humanist under the learnings of an ex-priest who I had also many learning with. One moment of shame ame from me that i would interpret differently in Nietsche, and he was damn right, becuase looking back at it now is a bit ackward for me.

the politician also found that such a model was part of his vision.

As far as voting goes, I have personally always voted for what you a bit pejoratively call fringe parties. This is because I agree with the man who was arguably greater socialist ever in that it is better to vote for something you want and not get it, than to vote for something you don't want and not get it.

That is a great quote.

And I don't believe in any Gerstein-line to get rid of this rotten system. I am also bloody patient.

what do you mean with a Gerstein-line?

Also keep in mind that politics is about more than just casting your vote every odd year. Partaking in different organizations for instance, or different kind of actions devoted to one issue. Union activism. All sorts of building alliances of progressives and potential progressives.

true that, but isn't there were a certain problem comes from in meetings? in weekdays the working man would rather be home earlier then the student and the loft-socialists.

enfin, that's just a sidenote, you are absolutely right.

Oh, yes, the good old "socialism is against human nature" argument. Haven't I addressed this extensively in my response post? I feel like Sam Harris, complaining that right after he proved extensively that the accusation thet "hitler was an atheist" is wrong, in his "The End of Faith", people immediatly wrote back to him claiming the very same thing.

I guess that, like Sam Harris, I have to acknowledge that this will never go away. Granted, I'm much less commited to this cause than he is to his.

You must know that these thoguhts were from Pol de Witte at his old age, defeatist and a bit bitter. Still he remained a socialist until his death.

I think socialism can work with human nature, but it must be in the right setting.

Still, as the old adage goes, "politics is the art of the possible"; this is true to communist and capitalist ideologies both. Hence, just as food for thought, let me exemplify: capitalist politicians are also individuals who want to seek their own wealthy; however, they achieve their mandates by tricking a whole bunch of people that they will work for the common good.

Mutatis mutandis, isn't this the exactly same contradiction you diagnosed in communist-oriented parties?

yes.

I could never understand the "wasted vote" argument. IMHO, votes are political statements of agreement, in which a person supports a certain consolidation of propositions. Therefore, a vote is never "wasted", unless it's given without propoer thought. Only political idiocy is to be shamed, not political minority.

Change your party, or grow the fringe party into a major one. Either way is fine, and voting is a step towards the consolidation of the propositions you find fit.

Regards .

my vote on one feels like game theory.

 

[Rossiya]

Are you actually a communist/commie/commie bastard etc.?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I've heard it said, by communists and non-communists alike, that a post-revolutionary state would be necessarily one-party. To me this seems the antithesis of democracy. Of what worth could a people's republic be who does not allow its people a legal avenue of change? Unless you think that a society born in revolution should equally perish in another to remove it? Also, if this is true of societies born in revolution, what of those born by democracy? Would such change also necessitate the presence of only one party? I ask this obviously of socialist states, since no communist society can be instantly born, either by vote or by arms.

 

[BasketCase]

So, what I make as an conclusion that a truly socialist party, is a contradictio in terminis.

It is.

It's only as soon as poeple can cast off that desire for influence, that a viable socialist party can exist that remains uncorrupted, but of course this is an unachievable thing, becuase poeple are well, poeple.

So, now we are with a party that isn't socialist at all, it works together with the big companies, they have mandates in banks, they have festive banquets and when I see the daughter of such a minister raising her fist while dressed in an elegant expensive red dress, then you know, that the party is intellectualy braindead.

The above is where socialists generally go wrong. If you tolerate big companies or banks or buy expensive dresses, "it's not real socialism".

Most socialists are looking for perfect socialism. Now, that's something that is, genuinely, impossible.

So, what can a proper socialist-democratic do then?

Naturally, you should do what BasketCase does.

I don't get everything I want. I want Affirmative Action banned, I want religion out of our schools, I want every dictator on Earth put to death. But, of course, Affirmative Action still exists here and there, religion still rears its head in schools, and only some of the world's dictators have met their doom.

So here's what you should do: accept the fact that the world isn't perfect, and settle for getting some of what you want. Because if you try to get everything, you will end up with nothing. Of course, most socialists will never do this. They'll keep striving for perfect socialism, which is what I want because that way the socialist agenda never makes any progress at all.

(Or, am I using reverse psychology.......? )

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. Given the stated guidelines in the OP that you are intentionally ignoring, stay out of this thread in the future.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[holy king]

basketcase are you a red?

if not, please refrain from answering in here and start your own "ask a basketcase" thread.

 

[philippe]

Naturally, you should do what BasketCase does.

 

[ArneHD]

Oh gods. Seeing BasketCase here suddenly reminded me of his thread with Townsnowman.

 

[Sui Generis]

Why do communists governments always seem to continually fail? Why are they so abusive of their citizenry? Why do they eventually tread ever closer to capitalism?

Because communism is a political theory that simply does not work. Of course, there was never a true Marxist state. Each and every single country that declared themselves communist... idk, jumped the gun, at least in regard to the manifesto. For instance, Russia was not an industrial capitalist society when it went red. The manifesto states that it is necessary for the state to be industrial and capitalist. China was similar, a non-industrial country going red.

It is a failure in Marxist theory. The workers of the world united only in non-industrial countries. The countries that were "ripe" for revolution, at least according to Marx, did not go red. Marx was wrong.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Because communism is a political theory that simply does not work. Of course, there was never a true Marxist state. Each and every single country that declared themselves communist... idk, jumped the gun, at least in regard to the manifesto.

No country has ever declared itself to be communist. It has been labelled as such by other people.

For instance, Russia was not an industrial capitalist society when it went red. The manifesto states that it is necessary for the state to be industrial and capitalist. China was similar, a non-industrial country going red.

The Manifesto is not a Bible, its outlines the intentions and ideology of the Communist Party as it was when it was written in 1848. It was Lenin who proposed that these revolutions could happen in agricultural societies and still succeed, which is why it is called Marxism-Leninism.

It is a failure in Marxist theory. The workers of the world united only in non-industrial countries. The countries that were "ripe" for revolution, at least according to Marx, did not go red. Marx was wrong.

History is not at its end. No one knows what will happen tomorrow.

Additionally, I'm nearly positive you lack the permission required to answer posts in this thread. I will here ask you to refrain from doing so until such permission is granted. Thank you.

 

[Sui Generis]

No country has ever declared itself to be communist. It has been labelled as such by other people.



The Manifesto is not a Bible, its outlines the intentions and ideology of the Communist Party as it was when it was written in 1848. It was Lenin who proposed that these revolutions could happen in agricultural societies and still succeed, which is why it is called Marxism-Leninism.



History is not at its end. No one knows what will happen tomorrow.

Additionally, I'm nearly positive you lack the permission required to answer posts in this thread. I will here ask you to refrain from doing so until such permission is granted. Thank you.

Umm... if it is controlled as a one party state with the communist party as that one party, it is a communist country.

Yea, I'm talking about Marxism, not Marxist-Leninism, or Marxist-Leninism-Maoism for that matter.

Anyway... I highly doubt that the capitalist states will be overthrown and replaced with red replacements. For petes sake, if they were not overthrown during the great depression, it is not going to happen now.