This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Communism - can it work? A mature discussion on improving the welfare of all.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Monday
That's not a lot to go on. What are your thoughts on why? What is your solution?
Post by
cooly012
That's not a lot to go on. What are your thoughts on why? What is your solution?
Well one kind of major point is that Capitalism leads to consumerism, which is never good. Being forced or encouraged to consume everything, tv, fashion, its all a load of $%^&. It drives us away from Compassion and eqaulity and moves us closer to Desire and greed, both negative effects on the human ego.
If i had a solution, it would be get rid of the elite who rule basically all of the money, but my way of doing that has not come to me, otherwise i would be modern day Gandhi ;p
This may be coming from my whole spiritual side of things, but we need to preserve. Extreme agriculture and infrastructure is not the answer for evolution. If we keep consuming the way the are, and the demand for resources keeps going up and up, the world wont last too long. Money doesnt make you happy, yeah sure prostitutes and cocaine may suffice, but internally youll still be lost and dis-satisfied.
The more that people thing money is the answer, the more that the gap between the rich and poor will increase. The rich want to get richer, and they want to make the poor feel worthless, they want them tos tay where they are, because if they arnt suffering then the rich elites may lose some of their money, its disgusting.
Post by
Orranis
What does off-topic think of anarchism?
Post by
Monday
IMO, it's unfeasible. It's human nature to form groups, which will just eventually lead to a new "government."
And AnCaps just make me giggle.
Post by
Orranis
I definitely don't mean lolbertarian's when I'm talking about anarchism.
Post by
Squishalot
How are you defining anarchism? I simply don't see a practical way of having faith in transactions with others under an anarchic 'system', and I don't see a way of surviving without having transactions with others.
Post by
Orranis
How are you defining anarchism? I simply don't see a practical way of having faith in transactions with others under an anarchic 'system', and I don't see a way of surviving without having transactions with others.
I really don't want to be too specific because I think there's a variety worth discussing and kind of want to see what people bring to the discussion from their own points of view.
I'd say the only prerequisite I'd bring is that it is a self-governed society against hierarchical organization, and by extension against private property.
Post by
Maurvyn
How are you defining anarchism? I simply don't see a practical way of having faith in transactions with others under an anarchic 'system', and I don't see a way of surviving without having transactions with others.
I agree. It is difficult to think of anarchism without thinking of a spoiled teenager who just doesn't want his parent's to tell him he has to be home at midnight. Most of the people who argue true anarchism tend have a "you're not the boss of me" mentality.
In my opinion, human society required objective governance to ever achieve anything beyond agrarian feudalism.
But I believe that our system is horribly bloated with legislation that only serves to enforce the agenda of a few small-minded individuals. Governments should have very little say in the individual rights of a person; how they live, who they interact with, or how they choose to spend their time and money.
I am a fervent believer in that we should not legislate to a subjective morality, and should have no laws for 'victim-less' crimes. if a persons behavior or actions are not detrimental to anyone else, then no one has any right to enforce their opinions of morality on them.
A good example is the marriage equality issue. I personally don't believe that marriage should even be a legal status. The government should not define what is socially 'acceptable'.
Two guys want live together and get married? Fine. Some other guy wants to marry his Corvette? Or a box turtle? Or his Anime 'pillow'? Dude, go for it. Nobody cares.
It should have no bearing on that persons legal standing as a citizen. People should have the same rights and legal status regardless of how they choose to live.
However, that does not mean that certain activities should not be regulated, simply because they can and often do cause detrimental harm to not only other people, but to the overall economy, the environment, and socio-political ecosystems.
For instance, Angry Hermit George the Mumbler does not need to stockpile uranium and dynamite as 'fertilizer'.
Rancher Bob should not have carte-blanch to dump his motor oil and diesel fuel into a hole in the ground.
And Eugene Banknote the Fourth should not be able to live as a sponge, on billions in over seas, tax free, trust fund accounts, just because his grand-daddy designed pretty handbags.
And corporate entities DO NOT qualify as a citizen. Period.
Post by
Dragalthor
@Maurvyn, I do not want to quote your full post as I agree with the main essentials but what do you class as a 'victim-less' crime?
Post by
Squishalot
@Maurvyn, I do not want to quote your full post as I agree with the main essentials but what do you class as a 'victem-less' crime?
A good example is the marriage equality issue.
Hope that answers.
I personally don't believe that marriage should even be a legal status. The government should not define what is socially 'acceptable'.
Two guys want live together and get married? Fine. Some other guy wants to marry his Corvette? Or a box turtle? Or his Anime 'pillow'? Dude, go for it. Nobody cares.
It should have no bearing on that persons legal standing as a citizen. People should have the same rights and legal status regardless of how they choose to live.
There is no legal standing issue. You can get married to your Corvette, but it won't be legally recognised and you won't get the tax benefits for being married to it, nor will it have rights to your assets if you die, or hospital visitation rights, etc..
The blacker/greyer issues come with the issue of bestiality. So while it may be nice to think that marrying a turtle is victimless, the RSPCA might have some very fair things to say if you try to consummate the marriage at all, which justifies the bestiality laws that most countries have (even if they came from taboo / social origins initially).
The thing about marriage in a legal sense is that governments have chosen to apply certain benefits to people who enter into a specific type of transaction (marriage), because they feel that doing so will provide benefits to society / country / etc.. It's just as fair as governments providing money to research entities, renewable energy companies and welfare recepients. You lose no rights by marrying your Corvette, but you gain no perks either.
Post by
Dragalthor
@Squish, thanks I completely missed that though it does beg the question is there actually any crime or criminality attached to the whole marriage equality thing?
The only crime that could be committed, as far as my sleep deprived brain can see, would be for a couple to declare that they are married when they are not in order to defraud, which, whether it is defrauding the State (making the rest of tax payers the victims to a very minor degree) or a company where the owners/shareholders would be the victims.
A very belaboured point to show that if you look deep enough there is always a victim somewhere.
Post by
Squishalot
There isn't any crime or criminality attached to it, in and of itself (and notwithstanding the path you're going down). What I think Maurvyn is trying to point out is the lack of equality generally; that the state discriminates against homosexuality. However, in actual fact, the state is discriminating in favour of heterosexual partnership commitments. Either way, this is his example of the bloated legislation and the government interfering in things that they shouldn't be.
It's worth noting though that there are a lot of countries around the world in which homosexual activity (as opposed to marriage) is a criminal act. That, for example, could be seen to be a victimless crime.
Post by
Dragalthor
@ I have obviously been hanging around a barrister friend for far too long but it is always interesting to see what other people see as 'victim-less' crimes.
I wonder if bloated legislation is a thing of the 'West' or of a set political persuasion or if ultimately whatever system you are running will lead to a bloat in what is/isn't allowed over the course of the years. We have had similar things happening in the UK over the past few years where certain individuals or organisations have called for, and in some cases got, specific legislation in where there were already statutes on the books proscribing the offence already.
Post by
Maurvyn
@ I have obviously been hanging around a barrister friend for far too long but it is always interesting to see what other people see as 'victim-less' crimes.
I wonder if bloated legislation is a thing of the 'West' or of a set political persuasion or if ultimately whatever system you are running will lead to a bloat in what is/isn't allowed over the course of the years. We have had similar things happening in the UK over the past few years where certain individuals or organisations have called for, and in some cases got, specific legislation in where there were already statutes on the books proscribing the offence already.
That is in itself a symptom of a bloated legislative body. One would expect that if new legislation is proposed, there would be some research into what, if any, statutes are already in place. If a body is prone to simply passing measures in order to appease special interest groups, without the necessary due diligence, then one should question the motives of the legislative force. Are they really looking to do what's best for the nation; or are they simply appeasing specific groups in order to ensure support, or other perks.
@Maurvyn, I do not want to quote your full post as I agree with the main essentials but what do you class as a 'victim-less' crime?
In my opinion, a victimless crime is one that causes no harm to others, either to other persons, or in larger scope to aspects of the functioning of society.
That goes to people deliberately influencing the economy or effecting the livelihoods of others, damaging property, or causing health or environmental issues with their activities.
If two people want to call themselves 'married' and live together, raise children together, etc; that causes no harm to anyone, and should not be the province of any kind of legal injunction. And it isn't just a tax status, in many districts married couples enjoy further legal protections regarding power of attorney, property, and even testimony in criminal cases - e.g. a spouse could not be forced to testify against their partner.
Sorry to go off-topic for a bit, but back to the box turtle: I meant it as an example; obviously the entirety of the legal implication of inter-species relations is way more complex than that.
However, in my opinion, if a society does not criminalize the misuse of other species for other things; horrific factory farms; animal testing of pharmaceuticals and healthcare products; brutal slaying of thousands of elk, mountain lion, and coyote simply for trophy and taxidermy; how can you possibly legislate against someone who claims to have a meaningful relationship with their box turtle, Boston terrier, or Siamese?
From an objective perspective, it seems to me that it is considerably less harmful to a cat to be a persons object of affection, than it is for cattle to be horrifically raised and then slaughtered and turned into "100% beef" for fast food tacos, or for a wild animal to be baited trapped and shot simply to provide another head mounted on the wall.
Western culture tends to have a very blind, very unbalanced perspective regarding animal care; where we will protect certain animals because they are 'cute' or because they are pets; but not others who we arbitrarily deem as less worthy.
To me, the cognitive disconnect involved is pretty jarring.
Post by
1458157
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Eido
Really enlightening discussion so far (still on page 1) but wanted to thank you for posting this!
Post by
1458157
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
Doesn't population growth generally help the economy.
Only if the workforce and resources can support it. Sure, in the US population growth is generally good for the economy, but in certain places in Africa and Eastern Europe, overpopulation and poverty are a real problem.
If communism could work why hasn't it.
I'm not a fan of logic like this. Capitalism wasn't a thing until the late 18th century. If capitalism worked, why didn't it before that?
Now, I'd like to point out that, much like pure capitalism being an awful, nonviable thing, "pure" communism is unfeasible. It requires too much against human nature. That doesn't mean that some elements of it can't be co-opted though. Northern Europe (to a small extent) is in general a good example of this.
Post by
Maurvyn
If communism could work why hasn't it. On the first page someone posted incentive to have no more than two kids. Doesn't population growth generally help the economy.
To answer part of this: It has. Or at least, it did. For millennia.
One could argue that indeed, communal living was one of the first strategies for human survival, and thus one of the longest practiced. A hunter/gatherer society would absolutely qualify in many respects.
There are many historical and anthropological examples of communist, or at least egalitarian, cultures that worked well for a long time. Whether they qualify as 'communist' or simply early egalitarian frameworks is up for debate, and depends on whether one uses the word
C
ommunist (e.g. the teachings of Engel, Marx, et al. regarding classless society), or
c
ommunist; one who engages in a communal living arrangement involving shared resources.
Some Christians and Essene Jewish communities even practiced a form of mandated equality and communal living, as they perceived the teachings handed down to them supported this lifestyle.
The ascetic monastic lifestyle of many religious orders are centered around a communal style as well.
I'm not a fan of logic like this. Capitalism wasn't a thing until the late 18th century. If capitalism worked, why didn't it before that?
Now, I'd like to point out that, much like pure capitalism being an awful, nonviable thing, "pure" communism is unfeasible. It requires too much against human nature. .
Spot on here. In general I dislike using "human nature" as a scapegoat; it's a flimsy social construct that varies greatly by definition depending on the who is defining it. But your point is valid.
Also it depends on how you define the "success" of a given system. In human society, as in everything, things change constantly.
Is Capitalism "working" right now because there are a lot of people making money, and consumerism is rampant? Does that make it "successful"? I am sure that the CEO of Big Company, his overworked/underpaid wage slave in Indonesia, the farmer in Ohio whose Ag subsidies just got cut, and a suburban housewife, author of the blog "Tone Your Calves at Starbucks while waiting for Your Latte!" will all have different opinions on that.
But they are all part of the system.
And keep in mind also that current systems are less than a century old. And many pieces of our system are less than a few decades old. There are probably still people alive who remember when there wasn't any federal income tax.
Things change pretty quickly, relatively speaking.
Post by
Skreeran
I'm back guys, and I'm chock full of education (of the Marxist variety and more).
To start off, I'm gonna go ahead and point out that Communism is a revolutionary strategy first and an economic system second. The most important thing for Communism is the destruction of Capitalism, the suppression and subjugation of the bourgeoisie (until they can be properly integrated into the proletariat), and the institution of labor/production relationships built on cooperation and communal benefit, rather than competitive antagonistic relationships as exist in Capitalism. Even if the Soviet Union didn't manage to resolve enough of its contradictions, and while there were problems institution this like the Great Leap Forward or the One Hundred Flowers campaign, those should all be seen as valuable lessons to be learned for future post-Capital state development, not a reason to continue using Capitalism.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.