Quote:
Communism and human nature
The self-organizing moneyless economy of the future will unleash
the full potential of human initiative and the striving for happiness
Many who post here argue that communism will never be possible because of "human nature". The essence of this false argument is the belief that a communist society would consist of an all-powerful central government that would tell everybody what to do--and would therefore undermine the creative initiative of individuals and the search for happiness.
• This argument is based on two false assumptions: (1) It assumes that a communist society will look like the former Soviet Union, or the current China, North Korea, etc (ie: corrupt police states with a feudal-style ruling class) (2) It assumes that people will only work in order to own bigger and bigger piles of commodities.
• The truth is that: (1) There will be no government in communist society--people will do what they want without being pushed around by anyone. The development of a corrupt police state or a new ruling class will be prevented by the struggles of the masses who will be armed with the weapon of transparency. (2) In a world of abundance for all no one will have to struggle (or even work) for the necessities of life (which will be a birthright--just like the air we all breathe). People will work on projects of their own choosing because (a) they find the work fun and interesting; (b) they enjoy the work relationships with talented and dedicated co-workers; (c) they want to make the world a better place; or (d) they want social status and recognition. A world of abundance for all where work is fun (and voluntary) will be made possible by a much higher productivity of human labor.
• An example of communist work relationships is provided by the Linux computer operating system--the core of which was created by many thousands of people--all working for free. A 2nd example is the "work" involved when people post to this board. No one gets paid to post here--but people do so--because it is an expression of their principles and convictions.
• Who is in control? Under capitalism (and previous economic systems such as feudalism and slavery) only a small fraction of the population has control over their conditions of work--and the life of society as a whole. Only under genuine communism will the masses control their conditions of work--and the culture, economy and politics of society. • (Ben Seattle • Dec 2003)
|
http://www.communism.org/#human_nature
Quote:
|
The rich do not elect our leaders.
|
I beg to differ. Directly, perhaps not, but I don't think you can argue with the fact that they effectively elect them indirectly. There is a well-proven theory that exposure to someone will increase our trust of that person and influence how much we trust them. Exposure requires accessing the public, essentially by the media. Here we can make 2 points. 1) Getting on television, the radio, in newspapers, on billboards etc requires money. As you can only use so much government money (well you can in the UK, I don't know about the US), you need more money to get more exposure. Where is this money going to come from? Unless you have immense personal wealth, this money is going to come in the form of donations, the bulk of which will come from the rich. If the rich don't like you, they won't give you money, and you won't get exposure, so you don't get elected. 2) Getting on television, radio, in newspapers, on billboards etc also requires support from the rich people who own these media. If these rich people don't like you, then you won't get access to their media, you won't get exposure, so you don't get elected. In this way the rich do indeed have a very large effect on how we vote. Therefore the proletariat are subject to the preferences of the bourgeoise.
Quote:
|
The "bourgeoise stranglehold on the media" is there with the consent of the masses though. Your only solution seems to be government control of the media, which most people will (rightly) see as much worse.
|
The consent of the masses? What part do the masses play when Fox or CNN or any other media giant decides to consume yet another small, independent news organisation? I do not consent to government control of the media, which would indeed be worse; a large number of independently owned news organisations that are not run by their sponsors is the best way to ensure transparency of the government in a capitalist democracy.
Quote:
So you are saying it would still be a representative government? So much for a classless society eh?
How exactly is that different from what we already have?
|
You seem to define 'class' as 'different type of job'. These representatives would get the same benefits from the communist society as everyone else, except their election by the proletariat would not be subject to the same money-related and contact-related influences that are part of todays democratic system. Do you think Bush would have gotten to the White House without financial support from so many coorporations and his father's contacts? Also, in accordance with Point 8 of the Communist Manifesto (equal liability of all to labour) these people would return to work once their period of election had ended.
Quote:
|
It would not be a classless society, because some people would have more power than others.
|
These people will have no power over others. They will merely state their views to the proletariat, and, whichever policies the proletariat prefer, they will help implement. These policies will flow from principles that are already embedded in everyone's conscious, and so will be the benefit to all, even if they do differ slightly.
Quote:
|
You just said that these representatives would be able to do "pretty much what they (*)(*)(*)(*) well please and get away with it".
|
Representatives from our current capitalist democracy are able to do pretty much what they (*)(*)(*)(*) well please and get away with it. The greater amount of democratic involvement and greater transparency of the government would prevent that in a communist democracy.
Quote:
So you are saying they would never have the option of reverting back, no matter how many of them want it. So much for the power of the people huh? So because you cant imagine a reason why they would want to revert back, it should never even be an option?
btw - who exactly gets to define what is "reverting back" anyway?
|
The bourgeoise maintain their position as the ruling class by conditioning the populous to believe that they way they are living now is the best possible manner of existence, that they way they live now is 'natural' for humanity. This is the same philosophy adopted by every ruling class that has ever existed. In this age, the bourgeoise employ the media to reinforce this message on the proletariat. The bourgeoise must be suppressed because these lies will eventually revert the new transitional socialist society to the old capitalist society. Do you not idolise freedom? Did the Founding Fathers not write "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? Are these rights achieved under conditions of suppression, as under capitalist rule, or under conditions of freedom, as under communist rule?
I would have thought the definition of 'reverting back' would be obvious. If communism is a classless society where there exists no money and all wealth is shared out equally, then surely any perversion of this, in which money continues to exist and becomes concentrated in the hands of the few as in capitalist society, would be 'reverting back'?
Quote:
|
These so-called "subjugated" nations experience higher standards of living than do communist nations. And they still have the option of breaking trade with other capitalist nations if they want to. The "losers" are still better off than the winners of communist nations.
|
THERE ARE NO COMMUNIST COUNTRIES!!! How many times do I have to say this?
Quote:
|
And, just like the antagonisms within classes in a country, they dont necessarily lead to war. In fact, they almost never lead to war. How often has one capitalist nation attacked another over economic issues?
|
Most of 18th/19th century European history is a history of war over economic issues.
Quote:
Or so you assume...but it has never been put to the test. The truth is that no matter how egalitarian your society is, there will ALWAYS be differences in (for example) living conditions. Some areas will be in higher demand than others. This will equate to wealth...meaning some people will be "wealthier" than others, because they will get to live in the higher demand areas.
You dont believe this will lead to strife?
|
What you are basically saying here is that class antagonisms resulting from unequal distribution of wealth will lead to strife. Yes, that is true. However, that is capitalism, not communism. However you want to put it, ANY DIFFERENCE IN WEALTH whatsoever is not communism.
Quote:
|
So, in order for the system to work, you will have to hope people become less individualistic? What happens if the conditioning never takes hold? You have removed the ability for them to revert back to what they had before, right? So how would the end result be different than slavery?
|
People will have to be convinced that collectivism is a better way of life than individualism. This will not be a passive shift but an active one. It will become self evident once people realise that sitting around doing nothing means that they are harming the growth and development of themselves and their community.