Working Class Rule

[Love As Arson]

Everyday working class life is a life of pain. It is a life in which no ordinary person is free of oppression and exploitation. If you do not have a job, you are a victim. If you have a job, you are the victim of exploitation and alienation. That is the truth of capitalism. Sometimes individuals can fight and claw their way out of the worst of capitalism. But that leaves everyone else behind to suffer the worst of capitalism. Sometimes a few people can defend themselves against the worst of capitalism. Sometimes, through struggle, there can be victories against capitalism. None of these is ever secure. Each one is threatened the next day. There is no stability, no security, no solidarity. This is not life for human beings. It has to change. It has to be changed. We have to change it. We have to make the future free from all oppression, exploitation and alienation into the reality of everyday life. That is the communist future.

These things are necessary. They are very hard to achieve. Communism will not come easily or quickly. There is no shortcut, no easy road and no simple guarantee. So, is there no alternative? Is there no other way except the long hard road of struggle? Yes. There is an alternative. It is exactly what is happening today. These are the two alternatives: the road of capitalist rule or the road toward working class rule.

We know it is necessary to free ourselves from capitalist rule. But is working class rule possible? Can it really happen? My main point in this opening essay for the Reimagining Society Project is that there is only one way to answer this question finally. It is to make it happen, to make it possible. We cannot afford to wait because in any case "we are the ones we have been waiting for". It is the millions and millions of ordinary working class people whose organization and action will make a communist future possible and a reality. Our job as the left is to strengthen and support their effort. This means supporting working class political organization. It also means critically assessing and then enhancing our politics as the left.
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21983

[open mind]

the world isn't ready to change so radically, and we're not getting closer to such a change, we're getting farther away from it.

[My Broken Fever]

Communism always forgets that people are stupid, jealous creatures and that they are completely unable to function in a communist society. Furthermore the communist ideas about economy will never work, which has been shown in previous and current communist/socialist states again and again.

Marxism, communism and extreme socialism are utopist views, because a theory that ignores all the flaws of mankind will not do any good. Oh, and there's the fact that communism usually leads to a totalitarian state governed by a small ruling elite.

[paper halo]

Communism always forgets that people are stupid, jealous creatures and that they are completely unable to function in a communist society. Furthermore the communist ideas about economy will never work, which has been shown in previous and current communist/socialist states again and again.

Marxism, communism and extreme socialism are utopist views, because a theory that ignores all the flaws of mankind will not do any good. Oh, and there's the fact that communism usually leads to a totalitarian state governed by a small ruling elite.


This assumes that the examples you are thinking of were actually Communist in nature. I am willing to bet you are thinking of the Soviet Union, China, NK, etc. In which case, you are incorrect.

Also, it is fallacious to assume that because something has never been known to work, it never will.

[My Broken Fever]

This assumes that the examples you are thinking of were actually Communist in nature. I am willing to bet you are thinking of the Soviet Union, China, NK, etc. In which case, you are incorrect.

Also, it is fallacious to assume that because something has never been known to work, it never will.

It won't work because the idea that if you remove a capitalistic market system it will lead to the solving of problems like class conflict, racism and sexism is irrealistic. It ignores the fact that all humans are by nature greedy and will not try to do their best if they do not get anything for it in return.

And I do not get why the examples of the Soviet Union, China and North Korea are wrong. All three nations were founded on the Marxism-Lenism idea of imposing communism through violence and terror. Which is, in the end, the only way a communist state can survive.

As I said, a theory that doesn't account for the flaws in humanity like greed, the need to believe in something and jealousy is a flawed theory.

[Animalhill]

It won't work because the idea that if you remove a capitalistic market system it will lead to the solving of problems like class conflict, racism and sexism. It ignores the fact that all humans are by nature greedy and will not try to do their best if they do not get anything for it in return.

And I do not get why the examples of the Soviet Union, China and North Korea are wrong. All three nations were founded on the Marxism-Lenism idea of imposing communism through violence and terror. Which is, in the end, the only way a communist state can survive.

As I said, a theory that doesn't account for the flaws in humanity like greed, the need to believe in something and jealousy is a flawed theory.
What on earth do you base this on?

[saysmydoctor]

I definitely think the abandoning of capitalist market system would definitely solve the problem of class conflict assuming other fiscal endeavors occur that help fix the extreme stratification of society.

[My Broken Fever]

What on earth do you base this on?

Isn't that the point of communism? To remove the possibility of exploitation of lower classes through capitalism, which will eventually lead to the lower classes 'evolving' into the higher classes, and lead to a society where everyone enjoys their work and all goods are available in large supply, defeating the need for any social conflict.

[The Personist]

It won't work because the idea that if you remove a capitalistic market system it will lead to the solving of problems like class conflict, racism and sexism is irrealistic. It ignores the fact that all humans are by nature greedy and will not try to do their best if they do not get anything for it in return.

And I do not get why the examples of the Soviet Union, China and North Korea are wrong. All three nations were founded on the Marxism-Lenism idea of imposing communism through violence and terror. Which is, in the end, the only way a communist state can survive.

As I said, a theory that doesn't account for the flaws in humanity like greed, the need to believe in something and jealousy is a flawed theory.

So because people are greedy, the best system is one that capitalizes on greed and makes it the centerpiece of it? You also seem to forget that there isn't really a pure capitalist system, either.

[Animalhill]

So because people are greedy, the best system is one that capitalizes on greed and makes it the centerpiece of it? You also seem to forget that there isn't really a pure capitalist system, either.
THIS

[Animalhill]

Isn't that the point of communism? To remove the possibility of exploitation of lower classes through capitalism, which will eventually lead to the lower classes 'evolving' into the higher classes, and lead to a society where everyone enjoys their work and all goods are available in large supply, defeating the need for any social conflict.
But what do you base your prediction of what would happen off of?
What historical context is even remotely similar to how it would play out in the U.S?

[My Broken Fever]

So because people are greedy, the best system is one that capitalizes on greed and makes it the centerpiece of it? You also seem to forget that there isn't really a pure capitalist system, either.
A fully capitalistic system that would regulate itself is as unrealistic as communism, I tend to urge towards a mix between capitalism and socialism, but I think that either extreme will never function.

And I never said that capitalism was the best solution (as I said above) I just think that the idea of a working class rule, and pure communism/marxism is to long for an utopia that we will never achieve.

[saysmydoctor]

Which leads us to the welfare state being the best tried and true form of government.

[My Broken Fever]

Which leads us to the welfare state being the best tried and true form of government.
Which I think to be absolutely true.

[The Personist]

But we can hope, can't we?

[Animalhill]

A fully capitalistic system that would regulate itself is as unrealistic as communism, I tend to urge towards a mix between capitalism and socialism, but I think that either extreme will never function.

And I never said that capitalism was the best solution (as I said above) I just think that the idea of a working class rule, and pure communism/marxism is to long for an utopia that we will never achieve.
That's a valid opinion- its just that we have no proof that it wouldn't work here, you know?
I would tend to agree that while it may be highly unlikely that it would work, there is no precident to base this off of.

[My Broken Fever]

But what do you base your prediction of what would happen off of?
What historical context is even remotely similar to how it would play out in the U.S?
It isn't my prediction, it's the idea behind communism, or at least Marx' idea.

[Animalhill]

It isn't my prediction, it's the idea behind communism, or at least Marx' idea.
Look at the first paragraph of your first post.

[My Broken Fever]

Look at the first paragraph of your first post.
What do you mean?

[Animalhill]

What do you mean?
Oy vey. The first paragraph of your first post is irrelevant to how the transition would go in the U.S because there is no historical precident for a nation like us doing such.

[My Broken Fever]

Oy vey. The first paragraph of your first post is irrelevant to how the transition would go in the U.S because there is no historical precident for a nation like us doing such. I was trying to point out why communism will never work, not predict how it will go if it were imposed in the U.S. Because I assume that communism will follow the theory communism is based on.

[Animalhill]

I was trying to point out why communism will never work, not predict how it will go if it were imposed in the U.S. Because I assume that communism will follow the theory communism is based on.
But don't you feel like a country's unique "personality" would play into how such a transition would play out?

[My Broken Fever]

But don't you feel like a country's unique "personality" would play into how such a transition would play out? Well the point is that unless you found a new state, not every member in one country will agree with the idea of communism. So what you usually get is one big minority, or small majority suppressing the people who don't support communism by terror and violence. Even if it were chosen democraticaly, you'd still have this problem.

[Animalhill]

Well the point is that unless you found a new state, not every member in one country will agree with the idea of communism. So what you usually get is one big minority, or small majority suppressing the people who don't support communism by terror and violence. Even if it were chosen democraticaly, you'd still have this problem.
I would tend to agree with you on this for the most part. Still, I harbor hope. The way that the working class is manipulated in this country makes me fucking sick.

[macabre]

Which leads us to the welfare state being the best tried and true form of government.

QFT

[TeachBirds2Fly]

It won't work because the idea that if you remove a capitalistic market system it will lead to the solving of problems like class conflict, racism and sexism is irrealistic. It ignores the fact that all humans are by nature greedy and will not try to do their best if they do not get anything for it in return.

There have been many instances throughout history to prove otherwise, from tribal societies to communes that have only failed because of outside capitalist intervention and oppression. I would have to say that things like sexism, class conflict and greed are a product of capitalism/the capitalist mind set, and not that capitalism derives from these things.

I do not get why the examples of the Soviet Union, China and North Korea are wrong. All three nations were founded on the Marxism-Lenism idea of imposing communism through violence and terror. Which is, in the end, the only way a communist state can survive.

I would have to completly disagree, they might have been founded under these principals by name but no chance by any praticality or real sense of the word Communism. And to even say any of these states are communist (in the true sense) is completly wrong.

As I said, a theory that doesn't account for the flaws in humanity like greed, the need to believe in something and jealousy is a flawed theory.

What about your fellow man? what about doing good and building a better society where you can earn a fair wage to live on? what about having belief in your work, knowing it is doing good for the whole and not a few shareholders? What about belief your community and yourself?

[My Broken Fever]

There have been many instances throughout history to prove otherwise, from tribal societies to communes that have only failed because of outside capitalist intervention and oppression. I would have to say that things like sexism, class conflict and greed are a product of capitalism/the capitalist mind set, and not that capitalism derives from these things.



I would have to completly disagree, they might have been founded under these principals by name but no chance by any praticality or real sense of the word Communism. And to even say any of these states are communist (in the true sense) is completly wrong.



What about your fellow man? what about doing good and building a better society where you can earn a fair wage to live on? what about having belief in your work, knowing it is doing good for the whole and not a few shareholders? What about belief in your country, your community and yourself?

1:) Sadly people will always find a reason to be jealous and despise other people, and I'm yet to find a strong lasting example of a society that doesn't have any racism, sexism or bigotry.

2:) It just proves all the more that the idea of a communistic state is a utopia, many people have tried and they have all failed. There is no such thing as pure communism because it's an impossibility, people don't like giving up all control to the state.

3:) I meant believe more as in religion, in communism it is replaced by faith in the state, which takes on nasty forms as with Stalinism. The rest is really only possible if you believe that humans are like ants that will die for the greater good of the colony (so to speak), but really humans are motivated only by the possibility of their own betterment.

[Love As Arson]

What does the state have to do with communism? You people are clearly illiterate.

[x togepi x]

Communism always forgets that people are stupid, jealous creatures and that they are completely unable to function in a communist society. Furthermore the communist ideas about economy will never work, which has been shown in previous and current communist/socialist states again and again.

Do you have friends?
Have you ever worked with other people to accomplish a goal and then done so?

If so, then all of these claims are empirically flawed. Human nature is a myth.

Oh, and there's the fact that communism usually leads to a totalitarian state governed by a small ruling elite.

this isn't all that much more different than what we have now, only communism has proved to work on small scales.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't see how communism leads to a totalitarian state. I could understand if you said Stalinism or Trotskyism....

[x togepi x]

and the idea that "well communism is bad because it's based on utopian ideals" shows a complete and utter disregard for the foundations of our current economic system.

[saysmydoctor]

People need to read Utopia before they call something utopian, I think that should be required.

[Love As Arson]

People need to read Utopia before they call something utopian, I think that should be required.
And Socialism: Scientific and Utopian by Friedrich Engels.

[saysmydoctor]

And Socialism: Scientific and Utopian by Friedrich Engels.
I need to check this out.

[TeachBirds2Fly]

1:) Sadly people will always find a reason to be jealous and despise other people, and I'm yet to find a strong lasting example of a society that doesn't have any racism, sexism or bigotry.

2:) It just proves all the more that the idea of a communistic state is a utopia, many people have tried and they have all failed. There is no such thing as pure communism because it's an impossibility, people don't like giving up all control to the state.

3:) I meant believe more as in religion, in communism it is replaced by faith in the state, which takes on nasty forms as with Stalinism. The rest is really only possible if you believe that humans are like ants that will die for the greater good of the colony (so to speak), but really humans are motivated only by the possibility of their own betterment.

Do you know what Communism even is? Because I hate to break it to you but it has nothing to do with the state. In fact it is anti state.

[My Broken Fever]

Do you know what Communism even is? Because I hate to break it to you but it has nothing to do with the state. In fact it is anti state.
It is anti-state only in the later stages, communism (according to the Communist Manifesto at least) is something that is the final and ultimate form of society, but before that is reached you have the rule of the proletariat which is supposed to be temporary and 'wither away' when communism is reached (ie everything is produced in such abundance there is no more poverty, or need for class wars/racism and such), because political power is according to Marx only a tool to supress lower classes.

My problem lies mainly with the temporary rule of the proletariat, and the supposed withering away of it. During the rule of the proletariat all the power will be put in the hands of one party, giving it a carte blanche to do whatever it wishes. And I personally, do not have any faith in the goodness of humankind, I believe that when someone is given power he will hang onto it as long as he can, humanity is in the end selfish and focused on the betterment of the individual.

So unless you believe that humanity is really socially-minded (which I do not believe), what it will lead to is an infinite reign of one extremely powerful party. And I generally don't believe in the idea that you can guide production as communism does, production has to respond to demand, I find it unlikely that everything could ever be made in unlimited abundance, which would practically defeat communism. And as long as production has to be guided to meet demands, you need a state.

[x togepi x]

how exactly is that different than capitalism, which is infinite reign of the rich and powerful?

[My Broken Fever]

how exactly is that different than capitalism, which is infinite reign of the rich and powerful?
I find it intriguing that you think that because I disagree with communism I must believe in pure capitalism, but that is not the case at all. As I said before in the thread I believe that the best option is a mix between capitalism and socialistic ideas, so basically the welfare state. But either extreme: pure communism or a pure capitalistic society is absurd.

[GeeBee]

So because people are greedy, the best system is one that capitalizes on greed and makes it the centerpiece of it? You also seem to forget that there isn't really a pure capitalist system, either.

THIS

But we can hope, can't we?

ALL OF THESE.

A fully capitalistic system that would regulate itself is as unrealistic as communism, I tend to urge towards a mix between capitalism and socialism, but I think that either extreme will never function.

And I never said that capitalism was the best solution (as I said above) I just think that the idea of a working class rule, and pure communism/marxism is to long for an utopia that we will never achieve.

Precious few in the United States realize this. Hence the backlash.

"Either extreme will never function" is very true. But even our best attempts at "capitalism" have failed miserably, while other countries' (i.e. Denmark, Sweden) best attempts at a relatively "socialist" system have succeeded quite well.

[x togepi x]

I find it intriguing that you think that because I disagree with communism I must believe in pure capitalism, but that is not the case at all. As I said before in the thread I believe that the best option is a mix between capitalism and socialistic ideas, so basically the welfare state. But either extreme: pure communism or a pure capitalistic society are absurd.

Your "disagreement" is mouthing talking points. The 'welfare state' is capitalism, essentially, a poorly run version of it, that also, still has all of the problems that capitalism has. You still have a complete and utter disregard for actually understanding anything about socialism/communism.

[GeeBee]

Your "disagreement" is mouthing talking points. The 'welfare state' is capitalism, essentially, a poorly run version of it, that also, still has all of the problems that capitalism has. You still have a complete and utter disregard for actually understanding anything about socialism/communism.

In addition...any idea that pushes a "mix" between capitalism and socialism is just as "utopian" as pushing an extreme of either one, is it not? That's like saying we need a healthy "mix" of liberalism and conservatism. The two don't mix, as they are diametrically opposed to one another.

[My Broken Fever]

Your "disagreement" is mouthing talking points. The 'welfare state' is capitalism, essentially, a poorly run version of it, that also, still has all of the problems that capitalism has. You still have a complete and utter disregard for actually understanding anything about socialism/communism.

I don't believe that to be true, the welfare state if run properly can let any person rise to where ever he or she wishes, getting rid of a class system. And I personally cannot stand the idea of a single party proletariat rule, without freedom of speech, freedom of religion or democracy. The welfare state offers (again, if run properly) democracy, healthcare, good education and equal oppurtunities for everyone while still being realistic in the idea that production should rise and fall to meet demand.

[My Broken Fever]

In addition...any idea that pushes a "mix" between capitalism and socialism is just as "utopian" as pushing an extreme of either one, is it not? That's like saying we need a healthy "mix" of liberalism and conservatism. The two don't mix, as they are diametrically opposed to one another. I don't believe that to be the case, as you said yourself Sweden gives a good example of how it could be, Sweden actually achieved those results, doesn't that absolutely remove the idea that it would be the same utopia as either extreme? It just requires careful management. Sweden has a welfare state, the market system is capitalistic and most of society is based on capitalism but at the same time it offers good education, good healthcare and other things socialism wants to achieve.

[GeeBee]

I don't believe that to be the case, as you said yourself Sweden gives a good example of how it could be, Sweden actually achieved those results, doesn't that absolutely remove the idea that it would be the same utopia as either extreme? It just requires careful management. Sweden has a welfare state, the market system is capitalistic and most of society is based on capitalism but at the same time it offers good education, good healthcare and other things socialism wants to achieve.

Right, they are more successful in their attempt to mix the two, but that doesn't make the idea of a "mixture" between capitalism/socialism any less utopian in nature than the idea of total capitalism/communism/socialism.

[x togepi x]

I don't believe that to be true, the welfare state if run properly can let any person rise to where ever he or she wishes, getting rid of a class system.

It does nothing to touch the class system on an international level. "socialist" europe dicks over the third world just as much as capitalist United States.

And I personally cannot stand the idea of a single party proletariat rule, without freedom of speech, freedom of religion or democracy.

This is where you show a complete and utter lack of understanding in communism. There isn't one singular form of communist thought. It has many, many schisms. This means that rule of the proletariat does not mean single party rule. You could see, for example, environmentalist socialist dissent.

The welfare state offers (again, if run properly) democracy, healthcare, good education and equal oppurtunities for everyone while still being realistic in the idea that production should rise and fall to meet demand.

This is a bunch of liberal bullshit. Once again, it ignores the fact that the entire system of the welfare state is built on exploitation. it also ignores that the welfare state countries rely on the capitalist model in foreign relations, pitting countries against each other. Plus, "the welfare state" does nothing to touch the power of giant capitalist oriented organizations like the Gwhatever (hell, some "welfare states" take part in such meetings) and multinational corporations.

who's to say in a socialist situation production isn't going to rise and fall to meet demand? that's a basic economic principle that needn't be exclusively tied to capitalism. You ignore the fact that half of what capitalism is based around is creating false demand, which is even more crazy than what you think would happen in a socialist state, since constructed demand necessarily requires infinite resources and profit.

basically your weak arguments against communism are based purely on a misunderstanding of Marx, which isn't even all that relevant since there's been plenty of evolution in the ideas since the 1800s.

[My Broken Fever]

Right, they are more successful in their attempt to mix the two, but that doesn't make the idea of a "mixture" between capitalism/socialism any less utopian in nature than the idea of total capitalism/communism/socialism.
Sure, it has it's faults, but is far less utopian in nature because it already works for countries than pure capitalism (yay for the crisis) and trying to establish communism through an almost fascistic form of state.

[x togepi x]

Sure, it has it's faults, but is far less utopian in nature because it already works for countries than pure capitalism (yay for the crisis) and trying to establish communism through an almost fascistic form of state.

every system "works" for their countries, but this system is based on exploitation. your understanding of "works" is based purely on the fact that you're in the West.

but yeah, once again, you don't know whatyou're talking about.

[My Broken Fever]

It does nothing to touch the class system on an international level. "socialist" europe dicks over the third world just as much as capitalist United States.



This is where you show a complete and utter lack of understanding in communism. There isn't one singular form of communist thought. It has many, many schisms. This means that rule of the proletariat does not mean single party rule. You could see, for example, environmentalist socialist dissent.



This is a bunch of liberal bullshit. Once again, it ignores the fact that the entire system of the welfare state is built on exploitation. it also ignores that the welfare state countries rely on the capitalist model in foreign relations, pitting countries against each other. Plus, "the welfare state" does nothing to touch the power of giant capitalist oriented organizations like the Gwhatever (hell, some "welfare states" take part in such meetings) and multinational corporations.

who's to say in a socialist situation production isn't going to rise and fall to meet demand? that's a basic economic principle that needn't be exclusively tied to capitalism. You ignore the fact that half of what capitalism is based around is creating false demand, which is even more crazy than what you think would happen in a socialist state, since constructed demand necessarily requires infinite resources and profit.
I'm simply sticking to the early ideas about communism. But the establishing of communism remains a similar problem, a lot of people hate to see a purely socialistic world order rise, so what do you do with those that disagree? That is a rather major flaw in the idea.

I'm not saying that the welfare state is the solution to all the world's ails, but I do believe it to be the most realistic option.

every system "works" for their countries, but this system is based on exploitation. your understanding of "works" is based purely on the fact that you're in the West.

but yeah, once again, you don't know whatyou're talking about.
But as long as we pursue something that is actually achievable we can work on solving exploitation of other parts of the world.

[GeeBee]

Sure, it has it's faults, but is far less utopian in nature because it already works for countries than pure capitalism (yay for the crisis) and trying to establish communism through an almost fascistic form of state.

We're arguing from two different sides of the barn. I'm simply saying that a "compromise" between two inherently opposed ideologies is as equally "utopian" in nature as is the "extreme" of either of them.

Also, "establishment" of communism visa vis a "state" is a gross distortion of communism. Nothing even CLOSE to anything Marx or Engels ever purported has been attempted.

[My Broken Fever]

Communism is the Leninist-Marxist idea of the overthrowal of the bourgeoisie to make place for a one-party proletariat rule (working class rule) to eventually make way for a communistic state where everything is available in such abundance that a state and classes are no longer required. That's what it says in the Communist Manifesto at least, and I was directed towards that in this thread as the form of communism to look at that.

The thread is called Working Class Rule, so I assumed that specific form of communism is meant.

[x togepi x]

I'm simply sticking to the early ideas about communism. But the establishing of communism remains a similar problem, a lot of people hate to see a purely socialistic world order rise, so what do you do with those that disagree? That is a rather major flaw in the idea.

Once again, you're looking at this in a needlessly totalizing way. The early ideas about communism provide a foundation, but even in the 1800s we saw schisms in communist thought. The early ideas provide a common goal, but, they don't necessarily tie us to that plan of action. Post-WWII, we see even more types of communist thought.

and this idea that "lot of people hate to see a purely socialistic world order rise" is no or less of a flaw than the fact that a lot of people in america share common goals for our country.

I'm not saying that the welfare state is the solution to all the world's ails, but I do believe it to be the most realistic option.

it's not realistic at all when you factor in what i was talking about: it requires infinite resources and exploitation.

But as long as we pursue something that is actually achievable we can work on solving exploitation of other parts of the world.

this doesn't work. the system you propose absolutely requires exploitation to work. as long as you have States operating within a capitalist model, which is what welfare states do, they exploit. your logic here is like saying we can combat racism while being a rabid anti-semite.

[GeeBee]

Communism is the Leninist-Marxist idea of the overthrowal of the bourgeoisie to make place for a one-party proletariat rule (working class rule) to eventually make way for a communistic state where everything is available in such abundance that a state and classes are no longer required. That's what it says in the Communist Manifesto at least, and I was directed towards that in this thread as the form of communism to look at that.

The thread is called Working Class Rule, so I assumed that specific form of communism is meant.

This is like saying "Applist-Orangist", and you should re-read the Manifesto. This paragraph is a gross oversimplification.

Lenin completely distorted anything Marx had in mind, and completely BYPASSED several of the key ESSENTIAL elements of Marx's theories. Marx calls for an era of capitalism to make socialism and communism sustainable. Lenin tried to go from step one to step twelve in one big swoop.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Social Democracy > Communism

There are countless reasons why this is true.

[My Broken Fever]

This is like saying "Applist-Orangist", and you should re-read the Manifesto. This paragraph is a gross oversimplification.

Lenin completely distorted anything Marx had in mind, and completely BYPASSED several of the key ESSENTIAL elements of Marx's theories. Marx calls for an era of capitalism to make socialism and communism sustainable. Lenin tried to go from step one to step twelve in one big swoop. I realize it's an oversimplification but it does call for a proletariat rule and a removal of the state when true communism has been achieved, oversimplified or not. And that's simply where my problem with communism lies (or at least Marx' idea of a proletariat rule followed by an ultimate form of human society)

[My Broken Fever]

Oh and for the record, I do not think the welfare system will solve poverty, I do not believe poverty will ever be fixed as long as humanity exists.

I just think that chasing the extremes of pure communism where every person on earth sees eye to eye and enjoys his work and everything is available so much poverty disappears, or that the free market will save us all are wastes of energy. Poverty will be there even if we threw out all forms of government, because there will always be one individual that is better adapted than another and will be able to exploit the other, and for its own survival it inevitably will.

What we do have is the option to reduce poverty drastically, and because I do not believe communism will ever arise (or at least not before the inevitable fall of the current system) or the free market system cannot control itself for me the answer is a social form of capitalism.

[GeeBee]

I realize it's an oversimplification but it does call for a proletariat rule and a removal of the state when true communism has been achieved, oversimplified or not. And that's simply where my problem with communism lies (or at least Marx' idea of a proletariat rule followed by an ultimate form of human society)

Then you fail to completely understand communism.

It calls for an initial proletariat overtaking of the means of production, as one STEP in the process, not the GOAL. And no one "rules" under communism.

Also, the "removal" of the state is the natural result of a gradual process, not an undertaking or the end result.

[GeeBee]

Oh and for the record, I do not think the welfare system will solve poverty, I do not believe poverty will ever be fixed as long as humanity exists.

I just think that chasing the extremes of pure communism where every person on earth sees eye to eye and enjoys his work and everything is available so much poverty disappears, or that the free market will save us all are wastes of energy. Poverty will be there even if we threw out all forms of government, because there will always be one individual that is better adapted than another and will be able to exploit the other, and for its own survival it inevitably will.

What we do have is the option to reduce poverty drastically, and because I do not believe communism will ever arise (or at least not before the inevitable fall of the current system) or the free market system cannot control itself for me the answer is a social form of capitalism.

Your argument is largely moot, since you have a very skewed and "Westernized" version of communism in mind.

[x togepi x]

Oh and for the record, I do not think the welfare system will solve poverty, I do not believe poverty will ever be fixed as long as humanity exists.

I just think that chasing the extremes of pure communism where every person on earth sees eye to eye and enjoys his work and everything is available so much poverty disappears, or that the free market will save us all are wastes of energy. Poverty will be there even if we threw out all forms of government, because there will always be one individual that is better adapted than another and will be able to exploit the other, and for its own survival it inevitably will.

What we do have is the option to reduce poverty drastically, and because I do not believe communism will ever arise (or at least not before the inevitable fall of the current system) or the free market system cannot control itself for me the answer is a social form of capitalism.

Man, living like you must be terribly depressing.

[My Broken Fever]

Then you fail to completely understand communism.

It calls for an initial proletariat overtaking of the means of production, as one STEP in the process, not the GOAL. And no one "rules" under communism.

Also, the "removal" of the state is the natural result of a gradual process, not an undertaking or the end result.

I never said the proletariat overtaking was the goal, but a step in the process that troubled me as during that step there is a lot of power in the hands of a possibly small group of people while the growth to true communism happens. And the removal of the state in favour of a communistic society is what happens when the goal is achieved: a true communist state.

[My Broken Fever]

Man, living like you must be terribly depressing.
And yeah, maybe it is. But after my experiences and looking back at history I find it the best bet to be cynical towards everything.

[GeeBee]

I never said the proletariat overtaking was the goal, but a step in the process that troubled me as during that step there is a lot of power in the hands of a possibly small group of people while the growth to true communism happens. And the removal of the state in favour of a communistic society is what happens when the goal is achieved: a true communist state.

No. No, no, no. Again...I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you need to read more regarding the subject.

"during that step there is a lot of power in the hands of a possibly small group of people..."
Wrong. Power was ALREADY in the hands of a VERY SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE...the aristocracy. The proletariat taking that power would put the power in the hands of a HUGE group of people. Read up on what was going on in Europe in the 19th century.

"a true communist state"
Again wrong. That's a huge oxymoron. There's no such thing as a "communist state". The main idea of communism is to do away with any "state" whatsoever.

[My Broken Fever]

No. No, no, no. Again...I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you need to read more regarding the subject.

"during that step there is a lot of power in the hands of a possibly small group of people..."
Wrong. Power was ALREADY in the hands of a VERY SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE...the aristocracy. The proletariat taking that power would put the power in the hands of a HUGE group of people. Read up on what was going on in Europe in the 19th century.

"a true communist state"
Again wrong. That's a huge oxymoron. There's no such thing as a "communist state". The main idea of communism is to do away with any "state" whatsoever.

I'm not talking about implementing communism in Europe of the 19th century but about implementing it now, the point is that even if it is a larger group of people it will (most likely) not be a majority and if it is a small one.

And replace the word state with society, English is not my native language and I can slip up a bit.

[GeeBee]

I'm not talking about implementing communism in Europe of the 19th century but about implementing it now, the point is that even if it is a larger group of people it will (most likely) not be a majority and if it is a small one.

And replace the word state with society, English is not my native language and I can slip up a bit.

Agreed. And no worries. But even now, power is in a relatively small number of hands.

I also agree with you...it's best to be a cynic. The pleasant surprises are far more frequent, and the letdowns more rare. How can you lose?

[x togepi x]

And yeah, maybe it is. But after my experiences and looking back at history I find it the best bet to be cynical towards everything.

but you're not very good at "looking back at history" since your arguments are so weak.

[GeeBee]

but you're not very good at "looking back at history" since your arguments are so weak.

For someone who jumped me not long ago for trouncing the religious in another thread, you're sure hounding this kid pretty bad...

[My Broken Fever]

but you're not very good at "looking back at history" since your arguments are so weak.
I don't know if my arguments are so horrible, it's more that I need a bit more practice putting mine forward in English, I'm used to these kind of discussions in Dutch, but this is kind of different.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't think welfare state is unrealistic at all, gonna have to disagree with you there

[macabre]

Yeah, I tend to lean more on the side of the Social Democratic interpretation of Marx. I see Sweden as a much more successful implementation of the socialist ideal than Cuba, China, or the USSR.

[paper halo]

Your argument is largely moot, since you have a very skewed and "Westernized" version of communism in mind.

This is a problem hugely prevalent in the West. People always view communism from a subjectively capitalist standpoint, leading to a fundamental misunderstanding in the ideology.

[Love As Arson]

One imagines a feudal lord arguing with a merchant, with the latter arguing for capitalism, and the former saying it is utopian.

[GeeBee]

This is a problem hugely prevelant in the West. People always view communism from a subjectively capitalist standpoint, leading to a fundamental misunderstanding in the ideology.

Agreed. It's not intentional for the most part, but still prevalent. People are shocked when I tell them that probably a good half of Russia's citizens, given the option, would go back to communism in a heartbeat. Many of them that LIVED through Stalin's escapades.

[Love As Arson]

I realize it's an oversimplification but it does call for a proletariat rule and a removal of the state when true communism has been achieved, oversimplified or not. And that's simply where my problem with communism lies (or at least Marx' idea of a proletariat rule followed by an ultimate form of human society)

I never said the proletariat overtaking was the goal, but a step in the process that troubled me as during that step there is a lot of power in the hands of a possibly small group of people while the growth to true communism happens. And the removal of the state in favour of a communistic society is what happens when the goal is achieved: a true communist state.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is a commonly misunderstood concept. Right now, we live under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, as the entire system is controlled by them and directed towards their interests. A dictatorship of the proletariat would be a system controlled by, and in the interests of, the workers; they make up the vast majority of society, so we'd finally see a democratic system in which all of us can finally participate and make decisions.

[saysmydoctor]

Yeah, I tend to lean more on the side of the Social Democratic interpretation of Marx. I see Sweden as a much more successful implementation of the socialist ideal than Cuba, China, or the USSR.
Exactly.

[Z-train]

Marx is only wrong when he is misinterpreted.The one thing he did get wrong was the idea that a communist vanguard party would give up control to create a classless stateless society.