Communism.

I'm going to make this as concise as I possibly can. Today Communism (and Socialism) is a demagogical word (a word of prejudice). It has become a curse word which has nothing to do with it's original meaning. Capitalist societies, like the United States, have, through propaganda, convinced people that the Soviet Union was a Communist society. The Soviet Union itself used propaganda to convince people that it was a Communist society. This view is false. Capitalist societies persist to ruin the word "Communism" itself in order to convince the masses that Communism is harmful (as the Soviet Union undoubtedly was). The Soviet Union did so for entirely different reasons, it called itself Communist in order to gain support because in the early 20th century Communism was not a dirty word and was actually seen as morally desirable. Communism began as a political party in the 19th century and the main literature that defined it was written mostly by Karl Marx in collaboration with Friedrich Engels in a book called the "The Communist Manifesto." One of the main themes of The Manifesto is that of the proletarian revolution where the proletariat (the majority, the working class, those who sell their labour) overthrow the bourgeoise (the upper class, those who rent people for their labour) and in it's stead establish a state where the workers control their own production, where they do not sell the labour but in fact control the means of production and all the benefits of their labour. This is called a socialist state, or a "dictatorship of the proletariat". This state resolves the class imbalance inherent in past societies, leading to true equality and in turn true democracy, a democracy where the masses are actually educated and are involved in immediate decision making, not just one decision every four years. This would then, according to The Manifesto, become a stateless and classless society also known as a Communist Society. What actually happened in Russia was that in 1917 the Bolsheviks (the Communist party) led a revolution ("The October Revolution"). The revolution was a success and the Bolsheviks seized control of Russia. However, the actual revolution of the proletariat that it claimed to be was betrayed and the revolution, or rather coup d'état, simply led to the Bolsheviks becoming the new ruling class, becoming more and more authoritarian and corrupt until it took the form that it is remembered for, the totalitarian state of Stalin. This was acknowledged by the real Marxists, the real Communists, such as Antonie Pannekoek, who knew the revolution was betrayed. George Orwell was very aware of the danger that the leaders of the revolution would betray it and establish their own power (his book "Animal Farm" is a brilliant allegory for what happened in Russia). George Orwell also knew the danger of language to control the method of debate. He knew that people could use ambiguously defined words to make their arguments seem valid. "Newspeak" in his book "1984" represents the ultimate danger of this. Communism has become such a word, a word that in these days right-wing speakers (like those you hear on Fox News) use to inspire hatred and justify their arguments. Communism is not the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union is not Communism. Any society which has a state is not a Communist society. Any society where the workers do not control the means of production is not Socialist. Listen to Chomsky, he can perhaps illuminate more on what I have said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ&feature=related and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI&feature=related

I'm going to make this as concise as I possibly can. BrownNoeser

I don't think that you succeeded

-this is more blog worthy BTW-

Your very first sentence is mute

It's funny, when I read about communism in history class in 7th grade or whatever it was, I thought it sounded like the greatest idea ever - everyone works together and shares their spoils, people are not motivated by personal greed...

It sounds great, and then you grow up and enter the "real world" and realize it would never, ever work in a million years. I feel like capitalism is in our very nature, it's a progression of Darwinism.

It's funny, when I read about communism in history class in 7th grade or whatever it was, I thought it sounded like the greatest idea ever - everyone works together and shares their spoils, people are not motivated by personal greed...

It sounds great, and then you grow up and enter the "real world" and realize it would never, ever work in a million years. I feel like capitalism is in our very nature, it's a progression of Darwinism.

Is there a discussion here? Anyone of intelligence knows that the public conception of communism is not the idea penned by Marx.muthsera666

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="BrownNoeser"] "Concise" would mean that I haven't used more than was necessary to convey my point and I haven't. I've written the information I wanted to present in the most concise way I could.

Anyone of intelligence knows that the public conception of communism is not the idea penned by Marx.muthsera666

Your very first sentence is mute

flordeceres

It's funny, when I read about communism in history class in 7th grade or whatever it was, I thought it sounded like the greatest idea ever - everyone works together and shares their spoils, people are not motivated by personal greed...

It sounds great, and then you grow up and enter the "real world" and realize it would never, ever work in a million years. I feel like capitalism is in our very nature, it's a progression of Darwinism.

Hahadouken

I didn't finish reading your post when I saw that you are taking what communism is meant now, and you brought Karl Marx into the conversation. The way Karl Marx saw communism and they way it was ran in USSR are two different things.

It's funny, when I read about communism in history class in 7th grade or whatever it was, I thought it sounded like the greatest idea ever - everyone works together and shares their spoils, people are not motivated by personal greed...

It sounds great, and then you grow up and enter the "real world" and realize it would never, ever work in a million years. I feel like capitalism is in our very nature, it's a progression of Darwinism.

It's funny, when I read about communism in history class in 7th grade or whatever it was, I thought it sounded like the greatest idea ever - everyone works together and shares their spoils, people are not motivated by personal greed...

It sounds great, and then you grow up and enter the "real world" and realize it would never, ever work in a million years. I feel like capitalism is in our very nature, it's a progression of Darwinism.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="BrownNoeser"] My post is not for "anyone of intelligence" as you describe in an elitist manner. It is for everyone. [QUOTE="flordeceres"]

Your very first sentence is mute

BrownNoeser

It's funny, when I read about communism in history class in 7th grade or whatever it was, I thought it sounded like the greatest idea ever - everyone works together and shares their spoils, people are not motivated by personal greed...

It sounds great, and then you grow up and enter the "real world" and realize it would never, ever work in a million years. I feel like capitalism is in our very nature, it's a progression of Darwinism.

Hahadouken

[QUOTE="curono"][QUOTE="muthsera666"] Yep. Human nature doesn't allow for cooperation on a grand scale.Hahadouken

I didn't finish reading your post when I saw that you are taking what communism is meant now, and you brought Karl Marx into the conversation. The way Karl Marx saw communism and they way it was ran in USSR are two different things.

xscrapzx

That's true. Even democracy, as it was originally defined, isn't truly practiced anywhere. It just wouldn't work.Much like communism, looks good on paper in the writings of Marx, but in practice would be an impossible government to run.

DarthSatan

[QUOTE="Hahadouken"][QUOTE="curono"] So being selfish is something we should abide to, because it is in our nature? Shouldn we try to progress?curono

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] I assumed that is was widely accepted that Communism is the best THEORETICAL form of government, but one of the worst once implemented (due to human nature)

[QUOTE="Hahadouken"][QUOTE="curono"] So being selfish is something we should abide to, because it is in our nature? Shouldn we try to progress?curono

[QUOTE="curono"][QUOTE="Hahadouken"] We have been trying for generations.BrownNoeser

[QUOTE="Hahadouken"][QUOTE="curono"] So being selfish is something we should abide to, because it is in our nature? Shouldn we try to progress?curono

[QUOTE="BrownNoeser"][QUOTE="curono"]Communism is a fight against selfish impulses, to aim for the community. Shouldnt we embrace some of it. Maybe not go for the complete commy thing, but at least take one or two parts of it?xscrapzx

Bingo, and that's why things are the way they are. People like to be rewarded and gratified for what they accomplish. This is why I think it's in our nature, possibly a product of our evolution.

This is kind of funny, we are all rehashing the basest arguments from those history lessons so long ago. Kind of an odd topic to discuss with no new information. :P

[QUOTE="BrownNoeser"][QUOTE="curono"]Communism is a fight against selfish impulses, to aim for the community. Shouldnt we embrace some of it. Maybe not go for the complete commy thing, but at least take one or two parts of it?xscrapzx

Communism is a fight against selfish impulses, to aim for the community. Shouldnt we embrace some of it. Maybe not go for the complete commy thing, but at least take one or two parts of it?rawsavon

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="BrownNoeser"] Communism doesn't ask you to stop being selfish. It asks you to stop exploiting people's labour. Selfishness is not extinct in a Communist society, it's just that selfishness is no longer the rule of survival.curono

[QUOTE="curono"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"] So instead of selfishness, you are telling people they can't go far in this life of theirs? So inspiration, motivation, and the will to succeed are now abolished because no one has a reason to do any of it?xscrapzx

Socialism is just like the N-gage, sounds good on paper, sucked in reality

Communism would be nice. If we could make it work.

Now its only a tool that charismatic people use to win over the hearts and minds of the underdog masses during a crisis... Wont be much surprised if a couple of countries turn to communism during this crisis.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] But as the size grows, the results of your labor become less tangible and less immediate...social loafing occurs yBrownNoeser

Communism doesn't work in the real world, about as concise as it can get, about as truthful as it gets too.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] But as the size grows, the results of your labor become less tangible and less immediate...social loafing occurs yBrownNoeser

If given the choice, I honestly wouldn't mind living with a small group of educated people (perhaps 100 or less) in order to work together in a communist society.

It seems nice and dandy, but I find it wouldn't work on a larger scale because a person will blend into the group, therefore will be less responsible and have the illusion that he can receive the fruits of labor without really doing anything.

Also, OP, out of curiosity (and not really to argue with you), how would you describe an ideal communist society? You told us what isn't communist, rather than what is.

The use of the word communism may be a perversion of that initially described by Marx, but so what, not like he applied for a patent on the word. The Bolsheviks called themselves the Communist Party (or whatever specifically it was called), and with that they were the first REAL WORLD party to be called Communists. Marx may have originally coined the word, but nothing ever came of it in what he described. We need a word for the authoratative-socialist parties, they called themselves Communists, may as well run with it.

The National Socialist party of Germany certainly weren't socialists, but that doesn't mean we still don't call them Nazis.

[QUOTE="BrownNoeser"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] So according to you communism=people with no personal goals. Meh...rawsavon

[QUOTE="BrownNoeser"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] All you can show is that in a capitalist society a citizen would rather loaf than go and do labour which would be exploited. In a Communist society the lazy people would be shamed, it would be socially repugnant to be lazy in the same way peadophillia is socially repugnant today. The reason why laziness is not socially repugnant today is because the upper class can afford to live a lazy lifestyle. Read this: http://marxistphilosophy.org/laziness.pdfrawsavon

Once again...I said none of those quotesrawsavon

I see now what you mean by cognitive laziness. When you see a lion you do not think, you run i.e. you do physical work. It is evolutionarily beneficial to do work. Do you think we would be here if our ancestors choose not to do work? No everyone worked, nobody even had an idea of what "laziness" was, it only the entered people's minds as an idea when people were able to live off the exploitation of other people. In a Communist Society it would be socially repugnant to be lazy in the same way it is socially repugnant to be a peadophile today. One wants only to be lazy because they desire to live like the modern-day upper class who do live lazily.BrownNoeser

It is a nice idea that will never come about to the inherent flaws of man, "original sin" if you like.solid_mario

I always find the following historical recording of the Pilgrims most interesting.

SOURCE: Commentary by Caroline Baum

--------------------------

EXCERPT:

The Pilgrims' first winters, after they landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620 and established the Plymouth Bay Colony, were harsh. The weather and crop yields were poor.

Half the Pilgrims died or returned to England in the first year. Those who remained went hungry. In spite of their deep religious convictions, the Pilgrims took to stealing from one another.

Finally, in the spring of 1623, Governor Bradford and the others ``begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery,'' according to Bradford's history.

Communist Manifesto

One of the traditions the Pilgrims had brought with them from England was a practice known as ``farming in common.'' Everything they produced was put into a common pool; the harvest was rationed according to need.

They had thought ``that the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing,'' Bradford recounts.

They were wrong. ``For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte,'' Bradford writes.

Young, able-bodied men resented working for others without compensation. They thought it an ``injuestice'' to receive the same allotment of food and clothing as those who didn't pull their weight. What they lacked were appropriate incentives.

After the Pilgrims had endured near-starvation for three winters, Bradford decided to experiment when it came time for spring planting in 1623. He set aside a plot of land for each family, that ``they should set corne every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to themselves.''

Pilgrims' Progress

The results were nothing short of miraculous.

Bradford writes: ``This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other waise would have bene by any means the Govr or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave far better content.''

The women now went willingly into the field, carrying their young children on their backs. Those who previously claimed they were too old or ill to work embraced the idea of private property and enjoyed the fruits of their labor, eventually producing enough to trade their excess corn for furs and other desired commodities.

With proper incentives in place, the Pilgrims produced and enjoyed a bountiful harvest in the fall of 1623 and set aside ``a day of thanksgiving'' to thank God for their good fortune.

Not that I disagree with you.. but really, good luck trying to convince everyone from America that their 6th grade social studies teacher lied to them.