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
Skreeran
So the way people intact with these groups could be more equitably dictated by the democratic communist dicyatorship, that is, before the government naturally withers leaving humanity in a harmonious world free of capitalism. I see. What about the borgoius sympathizers who dissent from the coerced social order. Casualties of the proletariat revolution?I'm not sure I understand your first sentence.
To answer your question, though:
Casualties of the proletarian revolution? Well, what do you mean? During the actual process of revolution, anything goes as far as I'm concerned. Revolution is revolution, and while you can hope for as peaceful a revolution as possible, ultimately if you look at historical revolutions, they've had all kinds of unintended violence, and there's not much you can do to stop that. This is regrettable, but revolution is still necessary.
But afterwards, bourgeois sympathizers would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Are then actively plotting counter-revolution? Are they killing people? I see no reason to bother people if they're not causing trouble.
Post by
1458157
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Well the Communist Party would probably respond with a series of documents addressing your Capitalist ideas critically, showing why the Capitalist state should not be revived.
This kind of thing would probably have to be addressed on a case by case basis.
Post by
1458157
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
I feel like you are dodging the question.And I feel like you are moving the goalposts in an attempt to trap me in an "extreme" or "tyrannical" response to a very specific set of hypothetical circumstances.
So the party would put out propaganda. Let's say, in this hypothetical case that weren't effective. I'm asking about the legitimacy of murdering dissenters if it's necessary to secure the revolution from potentially successful anti revolutionary thought. It's something every communist regime thus far has faced.Attempted counter-revolutions will be dealt with as necessary, up to and including with violence. This is not unique to Communism, and you'll find that most governments will agree that civil war is an acceptable response to attempted revolution.
Can you build walls to keep people in.I scoff at the idea of building walls to keep people in or out.
Can you imprison nonparticipants.I cannot understand why people who did not participate in counter-revolution would need to be arrested.
You seem to be under the impression that once everyone gets a taste of your brand of communism the dissenters will jump on board. You have this idea that eventually no government will even be needed. That everyone everywhere will be unquestioningly and enthusiasticly communistic. If that's what you think, that a few papers will put people at ease, and communism will bring everyone neatly together, fine.That's basically the theory, anyway. The proletariat is the large, poor, working class, while the bourgeoisie is the small, rich, owning class. In the process of Capitalism, all of the middle classes end up falling into one of those two classes. The proletariat already knows that they are suffering, and that something must change, but it is the Communists who show the Proletariat that Capitalism is responsible for their oppression and how to make revolution.
The proletariat is the vast majority class, and thus, if the Communists have successfully mobilized and led proletarian revolution, then the majority should be in control.
If a counter-revolutionary party tries to lead the proletariat astray, back into bondage, then we would respond cautiously, escalating only as necessary. So we would start by directly countering the Capitalist narrative, and showing why it is false and can only lead back to enslavement. If that doesn't work, then we ask for constructive criticism, or invite public debate to determine the will of the people. Try to maintain a dialogue with the people and keep them in on the political process, while working to keep education standards as high as possible so that an intellectual upper class doesn't solidify.
If that doesn't work, then more extreme measures, mostly involving infiltrating counter-revolutionary circles to keep an eye on them and arrest them if they looked like the were planning to put their ideas into action (i.e. terrorism, assassination, etc.). The first priority would be to prevent successful counter-revolution, not to suppress dissidents.
If that was unsuccessful, and counter-revolution did materialize, then you can bet civil war would be an acceptable response.
Remember my goal isn't to convince you otherwise. If you feel people won't be brought in line with propaganda, and lethal force is required against civilians, and you had to pull the trigger, would you do it, yes or no.If lethal force against civilians is the only way to prevent counter-revolution, then we have truly failed to prevent counter-revolution already, yes? If masses of unarmed civilians are storming the capitol and lethal force is the only way to keep them from reinstating Capitalism, then this is assuming that Communism has totally failed at everything it has attempted, that the people have been led astray, that education was unsuccessful, that material conditions have not improved for the proletariat, that global Capitalism has won, and that the proletariat will return willingly to slavery.
Rather that shooting civilians, I'd probably just shoot myself in despair, really. But that's only going along the hypothetical line that Communism is totally ineffective and that Capitalist writers have the amazing ability to produce nonviolent revolution from thin air.
Post by
oneforthemoney
Can you build walls to keep people in.I scoff at the idea of building walls to keep people in or out.
You can understand why that might be found funny for a communist to say.
If a counter-revolutionary party tries to lead the proletariat astray, back into bondage, then we would respond cautiously, escalating only as necessary. So we would start by directly countering the Capitalist narrative, and showing why it is false and can only lead back to enslavement. If that doesn't work, then we ask for constructive criticism, or invite public debate to determine the will of the people. Try to maintain a dialogue with the people and keep them in on the political process, while working to keep education standards as high as possible so that an intellectual upper class doesn't solidify.
I believe the whole free forum was what Gorbachev did, which did not end well for the communist state.
I don't really see the high education as feasible. Some people are naturally smarter than others. There are going to be careers where someone will need a better education than others to get the job. Namely, doctor, scientist, so forth. Not everyone is a factory worker who can work at the same menial task that requires the same level of education. Then, of course, there's the need for standardized tests, schools, all of which require some level of government, but government is supposed to fade away by then, so there's no overhead. Then of course there's the hope that the people with this improved education won't leave for somewhere which pays better, since there's not supposed to be any effort to keep them in, which causes another brain drain. Or infrastructure for that matter, which requires some level of state management, unless we all go back to isolated villages, though that makes the need for factories moot since you'd only be supplying your own village.
Or maybe you just kill all the intellectuals like the Chinese tried to do.
Post by
Skreeran
You can understand why that might be found funny for a communist to say.I can understand, but I attribute the Berlin Wall more to the material conditions of East Germany than to Communism as an economic
I believe the whole free forum was what Gorbachev did, which did not end well for the communist state.So then we've gone all the way from a mass revolution of liked minded proletarians to a collapsing state in a single stroke, then?
Need I remind you that the USSR was still supported by over 70% of the population when it fell?
(Even bourgeois history doesn't try to hide it.)
I don't really see the high education as feasible. Some people are naturally smarter than others.I'm disappointed to hear something like this. While this may be true to some extent, I think it's just a sign of how ingrained our oppression is that this is an excuse not to try to get universal quality education. A great part of the reason there is so much oppression now stems from the fact that education is a luxury. "Ghetto" schools have less funding, Ivy League schools are only achievable for the very rich or the very luck and dedicated. Where one went to school at has a tremendous effect on ones social standing, and for the most part, this level of education is completely inaccessible to the less privileged.
Then of course there's the hope that the people with this improved education won't leave for somewhere which pays better, since there's not supposed to be any effort to keep them in, which causes another brain drain.Obviously, if a newly communist nation is isolated in a sea of Capitalistic countries, it's going to have numerous disadvantages, and some extreme measures may have to be taken on a case by case basis.
According to Marx, you can't have real Communism until Capitalism dies on a global scale.
As for getting rid of the state, the idea is to build a society in which the people can organize and mobilize themselves without having to build a strict legal state in order to do so. Kind of a widespread network of small local democracies.
Or maybe you just kill all the intellectuals like the Chinese tried to do.As an individual who personally identifies as an intellectual, I hope you can understand why I don't consider this an option.
Really, Money? Are you here to debate, or just take cheap shots?
Post by
230724
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
took your advice and figured I would read a little of what Marx wrote. Unfortunately for the followers of Marx's teaching, I will not be joining their ranks. In fact the third link you posted (
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm
) reinforced my belief that Marx has deliberately ignored, almost to the point of calling it stealing from the worker, profit for the owners of manufacturing facilities and equipment. I ask again, when did profit become a dirty word?
Yes! Where does profit come from?
Capitalism is a system that accumulates surplus value through a series of unequal exchanges that take surplus labor (labor that a laborer is not paid for at its actual value). This can be in the form of profit extracted in the workplace, or in retail, or as a rent, or in several other forms.
Capitalism is very good at creating a great deal of surplus value in a relatively short span of time, but it does so unequally, with the owning class pocketing almost all of the surplus value, while the proletariat, who has nothing to sell but their labor, takes almost none.
Marx, having completed an extremely in-depth analysis of Capital and Capitalism over his lifetime, came to the conclusion that there must be a point where the relationship between the bourgeoisie as owner and laborer would become so disproportionate that the proletariat chooses to no longer honor the bourgeois concept of private property, and seizes the mean of production along with the surplus value stored in them.
If you disagree, then please tell me: If the worker and the producer are paid for their work according to the actual value that they contributed, and the consumers are paying the actual value of the commodity, then where does profit come from?
If am a Capitalist with $8 to invest, and I buy sandwich ingredients for $3 per sandwich, pay a worker $5 per sandwich to make them, and then sell them for $10 per sandwich, then either either the ingredient producer, the worker, or the consumer is not making an equal exchange. The Capitalist, who performs no work in this equation, pockets a $2 profit per sandwich, which he reinvests into his sandwich company to expand, hire more workers and make more sandwiches. The worker, meanwhile, earns $5 by selling their labor, but does not receive any of the surplus value (here manifested as the $2 per sandwich profit), and mostly likely will not be able to afford to invest any of their wage.
Post by
oneforthemoney
I'm disappointed to hear something like this. While this may be true to some extent, I think it's just a sign of how ingrained our oppression is that this is an excuse not to try to get universal quality education. A great part of the reason there is so much oppression now stems from the fact that education is a luxury. "Ghetto" schools have less funding, Ivy League schools are only achievable for the very rich or the very luck and dedicated. Where one went to school at has a tremendous effect on ones social standing, and for the most part, this level of education is completely inaccessible to the less privileged.
Well...Yes. Of course it is. You can't have every school be an Ivy league. That's simply not possible. Instructors have varying skill. Classes have differing sizes. You can't give everyone the same level of education and expect them to succeed. Walking into your average high school should give you a pretty good idea about that. Some are more driven to succeed than others. The child who expects to work in a factory won't feel the same drive to gain the level of education as a doctor. Do you force the child to stay in classes until they reach that level? Or do you blame their home environment and simply take him out and stick them in a state run orphanage? After all, we know there is a correlation between treatment at home and grades, so is that not the only natural thing to do?
Saying that you'd treat it with a case by case basis is not enough Skree. Because there are going to be people treating those cases, and a lot of those people may not like their job, or have varying opinions on how it should be done. One may advocate prison, another shooting. Who decides? Or do we treat those on a case by case basis as well?
I believe the whole free forum was what Gorbachev did, which did not end well for the communist state.So then we've gone all the way from a mass revolution of liked minded proletarians to a collapsing state in a single stroke, then?
Need I remind you that the USSR was still supported by over 70% of the population when it fell?
(Even bourgeois history doesn't try to hide it.)
And yet, the Soviet Union still collapsed. Even after the August Putsch attempted to take control and oust Gorbachev for a more hardlined communist state, which was resisted by civilians and demonstrations. This, when several countries had already declared their independence from the Soviet state, and were forced back into the Union through force. Hm. One of these things is not like the other.
Post by
1458157
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Well...Yes. Of course it is. You can't have every school be an Ivy league. That's simply not possible. Instructors have varying skill. Classes have differing sizes. You can't give everyone the same level of education and expect them to succeed. Walking into your average high school should give you a pretty good idea about that. Some are more driven to succeed than others. The child who expects to work in a factory won't feel the same drive to gain the level of education as a doctor. Do you force the child to stay in classes until they reach that level? Or do you blame their home environment and simply take him out and stick them in a state run orphanage? After all, we know there is a correlation between treatment at home and grades, so is that not the only natural thing to do?As it stands, the Ivy League is a privilege for the elite. Capitalism, as a system, MUST have inequality, and in most cases this inequality stems from birth and family moreso than the meritocracy that Capitalists like to claim. How wealthy your parents are dictates what kind of school you can go to, what kind of connections you'll have, what kind of promotions you'll be eligible for. The game is rigged against the poor, and the poor more and more grows into a stable class that it becomes harder and harder to escape from.
And yet, the Soviet Union still collapsed. Even after the August Putsch attempted to take control and oust Gorbachev for a more hardlined communist state, which was resisted by civilians and demonstrations. This, when several countries had already declared their independence from the Soviet state, and were forced back into the Union through force. Hm. One of these things is not like the other.It collapsed after almost 40 years of Cold War and struggle with the US and her satellites, if you recall. You don't think that had any effect on the collapse? You want to attribute it entirely to flaws within "Communism" as a social system?
You cannot extract an event from its circumstances. We have to keep a material conception of history.
I wanted to know if killing people with opposing viewpoints is an option to preserve communism. You said it was, in so many words. At that point you said what you've said repeatedly when justifying a radical viewpoint: "other people do it" .Now I know your just reading your own preconceptions into my words. I'm looking at my own post now, and I have no idea where you got that impression.
Then you agreed that once people are free of capitalism everyone everywhere will unquestioningly embrace it.You're putting the cart before the horse here, hoss. Before everyone can be free of Capitalism, everyone (or at least the majority Proletariat) will already have had to figure out that Capitalism has to be thrown off. I don't understand how this even need to be explained.
This whole time I've of a
popular
revolution of the proletariat. That's Marxist-Leninist theory. The anti-capitalists will have embraced anti-Capitalism before Capitalism can even be thrown off in the first place.
You admit killing civilians is going to happen, and in the same post reassure that everyone will love this new government. I don't even. I wish I could walk a day in your shoes. That is the only way I could truly understand your thought process. Maybe I'll be able to think of something later.Well I don't know wtf you're talking about, but I never said any such thing.
If you would like me to continue replying to you, read my posts, reply to them in context, and don't put words into my mouth. Until then, I cannot but liken you to a troll, who is only trying to reinforce his own predetermined views by reading falsehoods into mine.
There are no goalposts. There is no debate. There is no trap. I'm just asking you about your views.Consider them completely misinterpreted. I award you no points.
Post by
Skreeran
"Let my find out your views."
"Okay, these are my views."
"No, I mean, what if your views weren't popular?"
"Well, if they weren't popular, I can't imagine them getting much political traction?"
"No, I mean what if there was a counter-revolution?"
"Well then unfortunately, a civil war may be necessary."
"No, I mean what if there was an unarmed popular civilian counter-revolution that couldn't be talked down and shooting civilians was the only way to stop it?"
"A tragedy. The worst thing I can imagine. I'd shoot myself."
"THIS MAN WANTS TO KILL INNOCENT CIVILIANS. WILL THE BLOOD EVER STOP FLOWING FROM HIS VIOLENT IDEOLOGY?"
Post by
1458157
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
oneforthemoney
Well...Yes. Of course it is. You can't have every school be an Ivy league. That's simply not possible. Instructors have varying skill. Classes have differing sizes. You can't give everyone the same level of education and expect them to succeed. Walking into your average high school should give you a pretty good idea about that. Some are more driven to succeed than others. The child who expects to work in a factory won't feel the same drive to gain the level of education as a doctor. Do you force the child to stay in classes until they reach that level? Or do you blame their home environment and simply take him out and stick them in a state run orphanage? After all, we know there is a correlation between treatment at home and grades, so is that not the only natural thing to do?As it stands, the Ivy League is a privilege for the elite. Capitalism, as a system, MUST have inequality, and in most cases this inequality stems from birth and family moreso than the meritocracy that Capitalists like to claim. How wealthy your parents are dictates what kind of school you can go to, what kind of connections you'll have, what kind of promotions you'll be eligible for. The game is rigged against the poor, and the poor more and more grows into a stable class that it becomes harder and harder to escape from.
I think you missed my point a bit and ended up swinging at the wall. I meant not that the privilege of birth should exclude one from these institutions. I meant more how will you avoid a few of these institutions leaning towards having a higher standard? Communism isn't, after all, a meritocracy either. So how will it address the eventual consolidation of some institutions becoming more specialized to educating the naturally more talented, or simply the more perserverent? It's like the Cirque de Soleil as compared to your average wandering circus. One will attract more talented people to it, and hold higher standards. So how do you address the problem of this inequality?
Post by
1458157
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
10/10. You got me. You had me completely trolled, but I'm on to you now.
If you're just going to strawman me instead of actually addressing my arguments then I can see no further reason to continue responding to them. Good day, sir.
Oneforthemoney, if you would like to continue this debate, you know where to find me.
Post by
1458157
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
Tell me your theory for how a communistic world would advance technology.
This ^&*!ing argument man
The USSR went from a pre-industrial feudal nation to an economic and technological super-power under "Communism" (I would argue not actual communism nor socialism, but if you want to concede that you have to concede all your arguments based off of your understanding of the USSR).
The internet, the computer, the satellite, and the rocket were all developed by the state with taxpayer money, not capitalists seeking profits.
Technological advancement necessarily predate capitalism - in fact, capitalism itself arose from the industrial revolution. The agricultural revolution predates any sort of economy at all. There is no reason to believe technological advancement would cease in a post-capitalist world.
I dunno why I bother though Wowhead debating is garbage lol
Post by
1458157
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.