Communism & Hitler

[Osborn F Enready]

I make no assumptions Comrade. I try to give everyone a fair shake, and I "TRY" to stick to the issues. Though I must say your name rings a bit of socialism.... None of my business, but I am curious why you chose it if you care to expound a bit on it.

[Comrade]

The Soviet Union interests me a great deal. Russia, as an abstract thing, is a really cool place. I wouldn't move there, or anything, but I'd willingly learn Russian, if anyone taught it...
That's the problem with living in Texas. You can learn Spanish, Spanish, or, if you are lucky, French.

[ComradeRed]

Aggh! So many needless posts

1: They are being somehow paid to do so. Paid in money, chickens, favors, something; one way or another, they are recieving something in exchange for their Labour. Does not your society, which proposes that the Worker recieve nothing in exchange for his labour except the vauge and nebulous "Fulfillment" only serve to further alienate the Worker from his Produce, therefore worsening an already bad situation? Some varieties of Communist ( I was one such ) propose a "Social Credit" theory, in which X amount of work is worth Y amount of stuff; a straight-across trade. However, this system would be unduly vulnerable to graft, fraud, and corruption of all sorts; having a money system in place actually helps limit such things, because money is, supposedly, finite. Finite means of exchange means finite fraud. However, in a system where all means of exchange exist only on paper, those means can be inflated to infinite proportions, which means that infinite fraud is not only possible, but inevitable.

You assume that this is the correct answer. Why? Because its cultural. It is "natural" in a capitalist culture to pay people to do what you do not want to do. I recommend you read Redstar2000's Who will clean the sewers???

Scrubbing floors, working in coal-mines, smelting steel, and stitching shoes will always need doing, and no amount of study in The Science of Communism will make these jobs pleasant or fulfilling.

I -actually- smelt steel and stitch shoes. I have a home-made forge in the backyard (I'll borrow my friend's digital camera to show you guys sometime!), I actually make my own shoes, because I make them better than companies(!).

Thats a nice op-ed piece, but until socialism adopts constitutional limitations, it is a farce. Until it accepts the reality that individualism does exist, it is a joke.

I can't disprove things that don't exist, so until you can prove it exists(besides a "scientific axiom") I can't disprove it. So, go ahead, prove to me that individualism exists.

Are artists and mathmaticians the same? Are geophysicists and musicians the same?

Yes, they all have the poteunt to be the same.

I agree, classism is a problem, but adressing the way a person perceives or aquires personal satisfaction is not the problem, it is the allowance of gross unchecked wealth obtained by exploiting the weakness of mankind through manipulation of NECESSITIES that is the problem.

I agree. And?

By "acquiring personal satisfaction" what do you mean?

[The Dunedan]

CR,
I also do a fair bit of blacksmithing, though cobbling is beyond my ken.
What I meant by this is that certian large-scale types of production, nesssesary in an industrial or post-industrial society, will always need doing, and that these tasks will be unpleasant due to their stressful, repetitive, and generally nasty nature.

[Comrade]

That's why we build machines to do it for us.
Robotics is already a big thing.

[G. Adams]

The only communist society I could envisage working would be a collection of kibbutz style (not neccesarily same scale) communities. So for the following, this is not what I would want imposed on everyone, it's what I would suggest for my community, others can reject it if they like. This way, we can all organise our societies as we choose, rather than being born into a single system and have no choice. (idealistic perhaps, but why work for anything but an ideal?)

On why would people do shitty jobs - Well we could split a persons week. 10 hours of the week everyone does crap jobs. And rotate through the crap jobs, who wants to clean a public toilet if you can sweep? And 30 hours spent on the job of your choice. Perhaps for certain professions, if people show a great aptitude for it and it is quite crucial for society, such as science or medicine, they could work it fully, but only by qualified majority voting of the community to show consent for it. You might suggest that why should someone choose to stick by the decisions of the community over something as important to them as their job, but remember they are free to leave and find a more suitable society for them.

I'd hate to break this to you, the people who currently scrub floors, work mines and pick your coffee beans are not being "paid handsomely" they get some of the worst pay in the world. That is another communists rail at. That those who do the hardest work physically get paid the worst. Some say that because no qualifications are needed to get these jobs, they are less worthy of being paid so well. No qualification? How about being prepared to die in order to dig tin for someone else, and get paid virtually nothing for it? Not to mention the qualification of sacrificing years off their lifespan, the health of their backs, lungs and eyes. How does private property protect the rights of these people? The only land around them, which contains all they need to survive is "owned" by someone else, thus they work for them. Just because you get to choose your master these days, doesn't make the workers any less bound in serfdom than were there forefathers.

I think there are some mistakes being made. Individuality exists, it would be naiive or aggressively ignorant to deny it. But individualism is a principle, and a principle only exists when we make it exist, when we live it. The same goes for collectivism.

And it is the manipulation of neccesities that communism is opposed to. If the means of production, which as the neccesities and the tools to convert raw goods into neccesities, are publicly owned then no one person can exploit them to the detriment of others without their consent.

[Osborn F Enready]

Lets see, what would you ACCEPT AS PROOF that is already not before your eyes?

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition:
Main Entry: in·di·vid·u·al·ism
Pronunciation: "in-d&-'vij-w&-"li-z&m, -'vi-j&-w&-, -'vi-j&-"li-
Function: noun
1 a (1) : a doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be ethically paramount; also : conduct guided by such a doctrine (2) : the conception that all values, rights, and duties originate in individuals b : a theory maintaining the political and economic independence of the individual and stressing individual initiative, action, and interests; also : conduct or practice guided by such a theory.

From Wickpedia:
Individualism is generally understood to be a social context or environment in which individuals are the focal operating units as opposed to states or social groups; the social context has to be sustained by the beliefs of the people within it.\nThe term individualism has also been used to describe individual initiative and freedom of the individual in general.

Derived from individual, as per same refrence:

Individual:
1)Belonging to, relating to, or affecting a particular person:
personal, private.
See specific.
2)Being or related to a distinct entity:
discrete, particular, separate, single, singular.
See include.
3)Serving to identify or set apart an individual or group:
characteristic, distinctive, peculiar, typical, vintage.
See same.
4)Of, relating to, or intended for a distinctive thing or group:
especial, particular, special, specific.


It is the "IDENTIFIER" for human "individuality". There are a lot of fingerprints, but they claim each is INDIVIDUAL.

There are a lot of hopes and dreams, but each is most important to themselves INDIVIDUALLY.

No system can fulfill the needs of all, so it is best that it allows all to fulfill themselves.

All pine trees are pine trees, but in every field of pines, each one is different, as each has INDIVIDUAL NEEDS for life, growth, and sustinence.

[Osborn F Enready]

George, your concept of socialism could EXIST side by side with Constitutional Law as founded in our system in the United States. The only difference would be laws regarding private property, and rights. A state in the union could easily adopt socialist themes, as long as the Constitution was not infringed, through state rights and existing laws. The thing is, those already residing in said state would have to be swayed to vote in your concept.

[G. Adams]

George? It's Gerry. Unless your not talking to me, and my egocentric mind has jumped the gun here...

Well I live in the UK, so Constitutional Law does not apply. We don't have an entrenched constitution, Parliament is sovereign here, not the people or the Constitution. Therefore Parliament can change the constitution on a vote, which combined with our disciplined party's, makes it very easy to change the constitution. As Lord Hailsham said, the UK has an elected dictatorship. I don't see how rights cannot exist side by side with socialism, at least the brand I advocate. The right to free expression, association, equality (of oppurtunity), freedom from torture, freedom to develop as one wishes (providing it does not negatively impact anothers development without consent) etc. The only limitation would be that the means of production (land, factories, utilities) would be owned by everyone in that community. In order to share in them, one must contribute to maintain them, or have someone explicitly consent to shouldering your burden (most likely through an entire group, so should a full time minister, they could split his share of work among them). "Private" property would remain private, that is to say, property that you or your family alone use, whose use impacts only on you or your family, remains private.

But, as the only way this kind of community could come about and persist is after a revolution (peaceful or violent), the Constitution would not be a worry for anyone wishing to establish such as community in the US.

[ComradeRed]

Lets see, what would you ACCEPT AS PROOF that is already not before your eyes?

You still haven't proved the idea itself exists! OK, the word exists, but you have yet to prove the idea! As soon as you prove individualism exists, then I shall disprove it!

George, Marx called your idea "primitivism", "barbaric socialism", etc. The only flaw is that it is extremely unstable.

[Osborn F Enready]

The only way to prove it, in your terms, is to physically produce an OBJECT called individualism. This is obviously ridiculous.

I am not here to debate semantics.

Allow me to provide you a folly you will enjoy if you enjoy arguing semantics, and notice the similarity in your argumentitive style.

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty.

He asks one of his new Christian students to stand and.....

Professor: You are a Christian, aren't you, son?

Student : Yes, sir.

Prof: So you believe in God?

Student : Absolutely, sir.

Prof: Is God good?

Student : Sure.

Prof: Is God all-powerful?

Student : Yes.

Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him.
Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't.
How is this God good then? Hmm?

(Student is silent.)

Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?

Student :Yes.

Prof: Is Satan good?

Student : No.

Prof: Where does Satan come from?

Student : From...God...

Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student : Yes.

Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?

Student : Yes.

Prof: So who created evil?

(Student does not answer.)

Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness?
All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?

Student :Yes, sir.

Prof: So, who created them?

(Student has no answer.)

Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the
world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?

Student: No, sir.

Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?

Student : No , sir.

Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?

Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student : Yes.

Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says
your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.

Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Prof: Yes.

Student : And is there such a thing as cold?

Prof: Yes.

Student : No sir. There isn't.

(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat,
white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold.
We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go
any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we
use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold.
Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something.
You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....But if you
have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it?
In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness
darker, wouldn't you?

Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality.
You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God.
You are viewing the concept of God as something finite,
something we can measure.
Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism,
but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as
the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a
substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it.
Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a
monkey?

Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the
argument is going.)

Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and
cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not
teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

(The class is in uproar.)

Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?

(The class breaks out into laughter.)

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it,
touched or smelt it?.....No one appears to have done so.
So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable
protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir.
With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face
unfathomable.)

Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student : That is it sir.. The link between man & God is FAITH.
That is all that keeps things moving & alive.

All of Marx's ideas.... failed. Ours worked, until subversion, which was over a hundred years of success, and some of the most provable, beneficial, embraced success. Ours would still work TODAY, if people would take their responsibility above their comforts, until the police state is more obvious to the majority though, it will not be a mass revolt. Our revolt is actually constitutional if it were to happen, as the violations of the Constitution are provable, in many facets.

[G. Adams]

Marx's ideas have never been fully applied, or correctly applied. All of the "communist" countries have become so because a group claiming fealty to the working class has revolted, not the working class itself. These are Lenin's ideas, not Marx's. Lenin's ideas have so far failed, then.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by ComradeRed, George, Marx called your idea "primitivism", "barbaric socialism", etc. The only flaw is that it is extremely unstable.

I know what Marx said, I have read his works. But I do not take his conclusions as dogmatic truth, merely use them in such a way that I feel would create a better society. The only unstable society would be a none-thinking or single thinking society, which I oppose. I don't mind it being unstable, if the payoff is freedom.

[Section 8]

1. My question is ComradeRed, how will the army be disbanded? You would need to establish a rank system in the revolutionary force. Would just expect the generals to give up their power? What's to stop them from making another run for the coup?

2. The quality of goods will be sub-par do to the fact that incentive is removed for making the best product.

3. Will your society have a police force? If so, what is to stop them from revolting?

4. Will you have one global society? If so, how will trade be handled, and what measures would your society take to prevent embezzlement.

[ComradeRed]

1. My question is ComradeRed, how will the army be disbanded? You would need to establish a rank system in the revolutionary force. Would just expect the generals to give up their power? What's to stop them from making another run for the coup?

This is a little vague. Are you speaking in the terms of a revolution? As if I were to start a revolution how would the ranks be? If this were the case, I do not advocate "revolutionary measures" with a "vanguard" force to be a "catalyst". The workers will rise up on their own time, and I'm not going to push them to it.

If you are speaking in terms of after the revolution, it would be a people's militia. There would be measures taken to be certain that if there was a beligerent force coming, the "state" could mobilize the militia for its own defence, using guerrilla tactics.

The Ranking system in the second case would be: commandante, the one who is in charge of a column or a set area (e.g. LA county, San Diego County, Orange County, et al would have one commandante); subcommandante, who command platoons of 30-40 guerrillos; lieutenants, who command squads of 8-12 guerrillos; and guerrillos, the average soldier. Look at Chapter II section III in Guerrilla Warfare, by Che Guevara.

What would prevent the generals from making another coup? 1) There is no leader to kill, but rather an assembly. 2) There are no generals, but regional commandantes.

2. The quality of goods will be sub-par do[sic] to the fact that incentive is removed for making the best product.

:rolleyes: I find it hard to believe that incentives become this "magical" force that creates "quality goods". That isn't how it exactly works in capitalism, so why are you criticizing? Clothing in capitalism is crap, not to mention other goods made in sweat shops.

THe way I would deal with this problem is have automated factories. The U$ has this all ready, so it is feasible. And it removes the "incentive factor" that you capitalists insist on having while retaining the quality.

3. Will your society have a police force? If so, what is to stop them from revolting?

Once again, too vague. In a classless society, no, there will be no police. In socialism, there will be a volunteer police force, but nowhere near the power of the U$ police.

4. Will you have one global society? If so, how will trade be handled, and what measures would your society take to prevent embezzlement.

Yes, in a classless society it would be a global society. Trade will be handled based on needs, surpluses, wants, etc. The assembly would decide if and how trade is executed.

In a socialist society, no it will not be a global society.

[ComradeRed]

Oh! I forgot the individualism subject! Individualism is a pseudo-idea created by man during the bourgeois revolutions (c.1700), and declared that if you supported the King(God save the King!) you would be a collectivist. But the fact of the matter is that mankind was set up naturally as a collective society when agriculture was discovered. Everyone had to work as hard as they could to survive! And they had to pool their food they reaped! Or else they would have died, and where would we be now???

Oh, God is dead too.

[Osborn F Enready]

Yea... ok :rolleyes:

I don't believe in "God" as most people, but that is a seperate issue.



ComradeRed said:
Individualism is a pseudo-idea created by man during the bourgeois revolutions (c.1700), and declared that if you supported the King(God save the King!) you would be a collectivist.

I say:
So, you think that because someone came up with a label, to attach to a natural psychological process, that is when it was created? This is truly bizarre, and I will need more explanation to understand how you can consider this rational, logical thought. So you are saying the "concept" of individualism, only exists because a "man" (nice reference by the way) declared it to be known as individualism?

ComradeRed said:
But the fact of the matter is that mankind was set up naturally as a collective society when agriculture was discovered. Everyone had to work as hard as they could to survive! And they had to pool their food they reaped! Or else they would have died, and where would we be now???

I say:
Well, you are right and wrong here, and make a HUGE presumption which is INCORRECT. Not all societies became agricultural, and not all agricultural societies were collectivist. I would advise you to read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. I am sure of the book name, not quite of the author name. He covers most of what you are talking about in the most current, unfettered, unbiased form I have ever seen. Check it out.

[ComradeRed]

So, you think that because someone came up with a label, to attach to a natural psychological process, that is when it was created?

There is NO PROOF that it is a natural psychological process! Becuase it is a myth!!!

In the 1700s, when feudalism was breaking down and capitalism was on the rise, it was the excuse of "individualism" that the bourgeois revolutions began(viz. American Revolution).

So you are saying the "concept" of individualism, only exists because a "man" (nice reference by the way) declared it to be known as individualism?

Bingo! Individualism was a myth leftover from the 1700s that well wishers believe in; however, by no means does it exist -save in the form of an idea- and I have yet to see any proof that it has!!! Its not like collectivism exists either, capitalism is collective! It requires that people work for others' profit, that the "individual" reaps none of what s/he sows.

[Osborn F Enready]

You sir, are not rational to make this argument. I will leave it at that. The preposterous notion that man could not seek to be an individual and seek its own benefits from the basic take care of yourself mentality before some nimrod supposedly "labeled" it, is flawed beyond rational thought processes.

I am speechless.

[Lunaris]

Individualism, the ability to make only voluntary decisions, and to be able to voluntarily collectivise, if you so wish, does exist.

You want rule by the people over the people, in other words you want to extend democracy, the system wherebye everyone exchanges power over themselves for power over others (with no choice or freedom in the matter), why not just let people have full power over who they know best - themselves!.

and all this stuff about class war is so outdated, in fact it never really was applicable, look at revisionist historians and their debunking of the class war myth.