• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Family communism

MoSurveyor said:
To quote farther down: $850 million in revenue from 200 people is what you call "failing", you might want to rethink your personal definitions.
Click to expand...

No need for me to rethink it. It was Kibbutzism had to be rethunk. As the onfo shows, in order to survive Kibbutzism had to become more like capitalism. That and a good dose of government cheese is the only reason it survives today!
 
Manny said:
I appreciate the anecdote.
Click to expand...
You obviously didn't understand it.

Manny said:
No need for me to rethink it. It was Kibbutzism had to be rethunk. As the onfo shows, in order to survive Kibbutzism had to become more like capitalism. That and a good dose of government cheese is the only reason it survives today!
Click to expand...
"more like capitalism"? :lamo

Capitalists don't own the Kibbutzism, the members (workers) do. You're still thinking with that post WWII PR mentality - trying to make communism be Communist.
 
MoSurveyor said:
You obviously didn't understand it.
Click to expand...
What I do understand is this is something close to you, as it relates to your personal experience. I was just being polite. I don't treat people like an ass hat, especially if it relates to their family.

MoSurveyor said:
:lamo

Capitalists don't own the Kibbutzism, the members (workers) do. You're still thinking with that post WWII PR mentality - trying to make communism be Communist.
Click to expand...

Never said that capitalists own it, but they had to change their way of life as it was failing. They moved away from their hardcore Communist ideology. Since they loved Stalin it's safe to say they were big C Communists.

After their economic downfall they had no choice but to restructure the economy. They had to include capitalist ideas such as extensive privatization, differential wage, private ownership of property. In other words, a complete 180 degree about face, opposite to what their original ideas were.

The proceeding paragraph is not only a summary of the downfall and consequent changes in the kibbutz, but also for what happened to communism as a whole, in the former and now non-existent soviet union. It imploded on its own for the very same reasons. And the people were forced to adopt a more capitalist model for the economy.

Also the page on Kibbutz crisis which I used to dismantle your totally errant claims, it states that after the economic collapse they had to change their way of life, "transforming its socialist ideology characteristics to more capitalist characteristics."

That's where I drew the word capitalism. I make no claims without evidence to back them up. If you don't like the word capitalist maybe you should edit these pages so they conform to your personal view of things.
 
Last edited:
Manny said:
Never said that capitalists own it, but they had to change their way of life as it was failing. They moved away from their hardcore Communist ideology. Since they loved Stalin it's safe to say they were big C Communists.

After their economic downfall they had no choice but to restructure the economy. They had to include capitalist ideas such as extensive privatization, differential wage, private ownership of property. In other words, a complete 180 degree about face, opposite to what their original ideas were.

The proceeding paragraph is not only a summary of the downfall and consequent changes in the kibbutz, but also for what happened to communism as a whole, in the former and now non-existent soviet union. It imploded on its own for the very same reasons. And the people were forced to adopt a more capitalist model for the economy.

Also the page on Kibbutz crisis which I used to dismantle your totally errant claims, it states that after the economic collapse they had to change their way of life, "transforming its socialist ideology characteristics to more capitalist characteristics."

That's where I drew the word capitalism. I make no claims without evidence to back them up. If you don't like the word capitalist maybe you should edit these pages so they conform to your personal view of things.
Click to expand...
Difficult to have a Communist ideology in 1930. :lamo


Again you repeat your mistake. You seem incapable of telling the difference between communism as practiced by man for thousands of years and Communism as a post WWII PR gimmick. I guess you're not the first person to be fooled by America's PR machine. :lol:
 
Manny said:
Huh? Marx wrote the manifesto in 1848.
Click to expand...
And the US Propaganda campaign didn't start until the late 1940's. Up to that time, communism was not capitalized and had an entirely different meaning than Communism has. It's sad the PR campaign worked so well on you that you can't tell fact from fiction.
 
spud_meister said:
Which is the precise reason communism doesn't work. With someone you care about, you have few qualms with sharing resources and acting altruistically, yet you need to use a lot more effort to apply that thought process to your neighbours or complete strangers.
Click to expand...
Communism is only possible after generations of Socialism, where the ideologies we're currently familiar with have been revised completely. But true enough, it couldn't work as things stand.
 
Canell said:
Howdy

I don't know how many of us are aware of the fact that the family is in fact a commune. :)
Shared expenses, shared income, internal rules, shared domestic appliances, mutual help, etc.
It's may the oldest commune the world has ever known.

Objections? :)
Click to expand...

1. Marriage is, or rather, should be. Too many married couples maintain separate accounts with their separate income and separate expenses.
2. For the kids.... to an extent. As they grow older, children are expected to earn more of what they want, rather than rest on community resources. My boys right now do chores for points, and when they build up enough points, they get $10. Teaches them both the value of work and the value of delayed gratification (I hope), but if they want a new toy, they are working for it, not taking their parents money.

So yes for marriage.... mixed for family.
 
MoSurveyor said:
And the US Propaganda campaign didn't start until the late 1940's. Up to that time, communism was not capitalized and had an entirely different meaning than Communism has. It's sad the PR campaign worked so well on you that you can't tell fact from fiction.
Click to expand...

Now that's an interesting claim. From what I understand, Marx disagreed. But if you would like to explain what you mean by this, I would be interested in reading it.
 
NoC_T said:
Communism is only possible after generations of Socialism, where the ideologies we're currently familiar with have been revised completely. But true enough, it couldn't work as things stand.
Click to expand...

A New Man? No thanks. The bloodiest chapters in human history (raw number of casualties) were the results of precisely that attempt to carve new people from the flesh of living ones.
 
Manny said:
Huh? Marx wrote the manifesto in 1848.
Click to expand...

the Communist Manifesto, it is worth pointing out. He also founded the Communist Correspondance Committee and declared that Communism was a self-aware ideology.

As for 1930, we had a Communist Party in the U.S. at the time, which was indeed subservient to the Communist USSR.
 
cpwill said:
A New Man? No thanks. The bloodiest chapters in human history (raw number of casualties) were the results of precisely that attempt to carve new people from the flesh of living ones.
Click to expand...
More like an evolved society beyond anything we've ever been accustomed to. For the most part, debating Communism will always be purely speculative, since we've no examples to draw on. It would be so radically unfamiliar, we can only guess. Only those with no knowledge of the basic building blocks of political discourse believe Communism has ever existed. The same people who believe that Hitler was a 'Socialist', for example.
 
NoC_T said:
More like an evolved society beyond anything we've ever been accustomed to. For the most part, debating Communism will always be purely speculative, since we've no examples to draw on. It would be so radically unfamiliar, we can only guess. Only those with no knowledge of the basic building blocks of political discourse believe Communism has ever existed. The same people who believe that Hitler was a 'Socialist', for example.
Click to expand...
That's because there is a difference between ideology and reality. No ideology has ever been practically expressed as thing-in-itself, because of the nature of human corruption. It comes down to the question, what type of corruption does this ideology allow for.
 
cpwill said:
Now that's an interesting claim. From what I understand, Marx disagreed. But if you would like to explain what you mean by this, I would be interested in reading it.
Click to expand...
Many people today believe the USSR was a communist state, which is patently false. Many people believe there are many communist countries, also patently false. They're Communist, not communist. Given your post above (about families) I'm sure you know the difference.


I'm pretty sure Marx didn't have the USSR, Cuba, or any of the other dozen or so "Communist" countries in mind.
 
Last edited:
Manny said:
That's because there is a difference between ideology and reality. No ideology has ever been practically expressed as thing-in-itself, because of the nature of human corruption. It comes down to the question, what type of corruption does this ideology allow for.
Click to expand...
Reality's subjective. My own experience of it won't be yours and vice versa. This makes it no less 'real' for either of us. Communism, having never been a reality for anyone, could only be ideological. But that's not the same as saying it couldn't be realised, or Capitalism was fated to remain an impossibility from a Neanderthal's perspective.

Why does any of this boil down to corruption?
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
And the US Propaganda campaign didn't start until the late 1940's. Up to that time, communism was not capitalized and had an entirely different meaning than Communism has. It's sad the PR campaign worked so well on you that you can't tell fact from fiction.
Click to expand...
Whats sad is that you keep making erroneous claims, and when I show that you're way off you move the goal posts, and try to be cute. Communism was around long before the 1930's. In fact Hitler identified it as the principle enemy of Germany in his Mein Kampf,written in 1925. He viewed communism as greatest threat and this was perhaps the most important reason the Germans embarked on the world war. The fight in Poland was only a prelude of what Hitler felt needed to be done.
 
iangb said:
Agreed. Communism can only work when every single person is invested in the well-being of the entire group, rather than of themselves. That doesn't mean that it can only work within families, though - but it is limited to within a small group of people.

For reference, check out Cracked's great article on the Monkeysphere (sorry, no link - I'd rather not access Cracked at work). Interesting stuff...

EDIT: As a sideline, it's interesting to point out that some religions, in promoting altuism, in part promote the communist mindset. Not a criticism (I know some people consider 'communist!' to be an insult, I wouldn't count myself amongst them), just an observation.
Click to expand...

We were all commies for hundreds of thousands of years.

That system broke down along with many others when we started living in groups large enough that everybody didnt know everybody. I've heard its around 700.
 
Manny said:
The purpose of family is to raise children so they can grow up and eventually leave the family, so they can have their own independent lives. They can then choose to do what they wish, live wherever they wish, get their own place, make their own income, raise a family of their own. Or, not raise a family. At that point the original parental family gets smaller, and mom and dad live out the rest of their lives on their own. So, NO, the family is not the same as a commune, which needs to retain the membership in order to perpetuate itself. The fundamental purpose of family is completely the opposite of a commune.

To understand better what a commune is, take a look at hippy communes. Hippies, the ultimate evolution of leftist liberals.
Click to expand...

Thats a relatively recent development.

I'm almost fifty, but both sides of my family did the grow up, get a job, move out, build a life, parents return in old age routine. Fathers broke of some of the family land to sons when they married.

Its capitalism that gave us the far more profitable model we "enjoy" today. Two income hoiseholds , retirement industry, etc. Parents moving back with the kids, and lending a hand with chores/childcare is obviously less profitable that nursing homes and preschool. Kids used to stay MUCH closer to home too.

The lifestyle you describe is less than a hundred years old, in other words. It existed in some form or other, but was not the "norm".
 
NoC_T said:
Why does anyone of this boil down to corruption?
Click to expand...
Because while many such ideologies have good ideas, the problem is always corruption. Marx in fact tried to develop a system that would prevent the wealthy elite from achieving control, the type of control that undermines fairness and equal opportunity. Not, EQUALITY per se, but equal opportunity. But his solution was to have constant revolution. Marx felt that there must be a revolution or complete overthrow of power in the existing government, every 20 years. That's because he claimed no matter what kind of political/ economic system is in place, the bourgeoisie would rise to positions of influence and see to it that their power would be permanently secured.

I believe he is right. That's the corrupting human nature I am talking about. However the solution of constant revolution, which implies upheaval, crisis, conflict does not sit well with me either. And it's certainly not how the Soviet Union or China operated.

But in any case it comes down to what we would rather have- constant instability and the violence associated with that, or civil society that accepts some level of corruption.
 
Last edited:
What if...? said:
Thats a relatively recent development.

I'm almost fifty, but both sides of my family did the grow up, get a job, move out, build a life, parents return in old age routine. Fathers broke of some of the family land to sons when they married.

Its capitalism that gave us the far more profitable model we "enjoy" today. Two income hoiseholds , retirement industry, etc. Parents moving back with the kids, and lending a hand with chores/childcare is obviously less profitable that nursing homes and preschool. Kids used to stay MUCH closer to home too.

The lifestyle you describe is less than a hundred years old, in other words. It existed in some form or other, but was not the "norm".
Click to expand...
Perhaps. And I appreciate the "enjoy" being in quotes. I'm sure that pre-industrial revolution we lived in smaller village communities for the most part, where it makes sense to share goods and services to make life easier. The intent within family is still and always has been, raise the young who are not yet capable of self determination, up to the point they are able to do so. What happens next is a family decision.

Even birdies will nudge the little ones out of the nest to see if they can fly on their own. But to equate all forms of sharing, family, and social life to communism is false.
 
Helix said:
sure. communism works well at the family or tribal level, because everyone is immediately accountable for his or her actions and contributions.
Click to expand...

I think EVERYBODY would do themselves a favor by learning more about our transition from hunter/gatherers to sedentary farmers/herdsman.

It explains so much about where we are and how we got here.

It placed massive evolutionary pressure on us. The ability to digest lactose and gluten are both physical adaptations that occurred as a result. Brain structure too, according to recent research.

It was also the birth of many commonplace occupations and institutions. Like the management class. Kings. Corruption. Nepotism.

Short version:

Realized we could produce enough food to live instead of wandering around looking for it.

Realized it was more efficient to build a single storehouse to protect that food from pests and the elements.

Then came the year the food ran out midwinter and everybody noticed the family next to the storehouse was really fat.

So we decided to "lock up" the food and pass it out equally. Accounting is born.

Didn't work. The groups size exceeded the ability for peer pressure to compel the lazy to get with it. So the "manager" class was born, to assign how much one must do to get their "ration". Followed by corruption and nepotism. Managers tend to be fatter, their families get the best "jobs".

Food storage makes war as we think of it possible. Population increasing to meet then exceed food supply makes it necessary.

Etc etc. Really interesting and sheds a lot of light on whats going on today.

We have literally gone from "everybody contributes and everybody gets fed" to pure individual competition in about 12,000 years.
 
Manny said:
Perhaps. And I appreciate the "enjoy" being in quotes. I'm sure that pre-industrial revolution we lived in smaller village communities for the most part, where it makes sense to share goods and services to make life easier. The intent within family is still and always has been, raise the young who are not yet capable of self determination, up to the point they are able to do so. What happens next is a family decision.

Even birdies will nudge the little ones out of the nest to see if they can fly on their own. But to equate all forms of sharing, family, and social life to communism is false.
Click to expand...

Tribal peoples worldwide adopted raiding strategies, stealing other tribes women, to deal with the simple fact that kids didnt move away and inbreeding became a problem.

The lifestyle you describe is about a hundred years old. SOME kids sid go out in the world to seek their fortune
But it wasnt the "norm". The norm was the neighbors got together and built the sons a house on the family property when they married, or added a room to the family home of they were peasants of some kind.

You are correct when you say the current models "birthday" is the Industrial Revolution. The IR has been described as a change comparable to that of abandoning the nomadic lifestyle, though less extreme.
 
MoSurveyor said:
And the US Propaganda campaign didn't start until the late 1940's. Up to that time, communism was not capitalized and had an entirely different meaning than Communism has. It's sad the PR campaign worked so well on you that you can't tell fact from fiction.
Click to expand...

"Anarchy" is another case. It only became a synonym for "chaos" after some of their ideas began to resonate.

Anarchy, without a king, and its original ideology is VERY different from the way the word is used now.

Personally, i think the whole "free markets, free of coercion" part is what got them shut down and propagandized into villainy.
 
Manny said:
Whats sad is that you keep making erroneous claims, and when I show that you're way off you move the goal posts, and try to be cute. Communism was around long before the 1930's.
Click to expand...
Which still doesn't male the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (or any other "Communist" nation for that matter) communist.


Manny said:
In fact Hitler identified it as the principle enemy of Germany in his Mein Kampf,written in 1925. He viewed communism as greatest threat and this was perhaps the most important reason the Germans embarked on the world war. The fight in Poland was only a prelude of what Hitler felt needed to be done.
Click to expand...
What other things do you and Hitler have in common? :lol:



Outside of the fact Hitler was a little crazy - he invaded Russia because he didn't want to be dependent on it for oil. :roll:
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Many people today believe the USSR was a communist state, which is patently false. Many people believe there are many communist countries, also patently false. They're Communist, not communist. Given your post above (about families) I'm sure you know the difference.


I'm pretty sure Marx didn't have the USSR, Cuba, or any of the other dozen or so "Communist" countries in mind.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, the boys who started the Soviet Union pulled off the scam of the century, using propaganda and promises of a workers paradise to trick the russian people into throwing out the czars and installing them in their place. They never intended to create a workers paradise. They built a standard top down heirarchy disguised as a *vanguard", temporary situation with no intention of handing over power to the "workers".

Self godwinning, but hitler and goebbels both stated clearly the nazi party would never have been possible without tricks developed by the persuasion masters at the head of the Soviet revolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom