The Mark said:
So, what is your argument here? That this poll is pointless, and all the arguments are things people pulled out of their ass? We're all groping blindly and running into each other?
Yes and no. Most people are going to respond to this thread from the perspective that the Soviet Union was some kind of communist state, and abstract a definition out from that (see Tashah's post as a great example of this). So there are other reasons than what I was referring to.
But we can't have a discussion on
anything that will happen in the future outside of abstractions based on an investigation of the development of history. There is a reason that whenever Marx (or any other serious Marxist theoretician) spoke of a future communist society he always spoke in abstractions. He wasn't interested in painting a picture of how he
thought it would work in a concrete way but rather made conclusions on its general development based on historical investigation.
So to say that "these would cause some issues" leads into a discussion based on what kind of various laws or systems would be set up to deal with such issues, which would lead us into the realm of blind speculation.
The Mark said:
I was arguing neither of those things.
Simply that, in any given group of humans, it seems likely that some percentage will be greedy bastards, some percentage will be murdering psychopaths, and some percentage will be selfless, kind-hearted souls. Among other labels, and the like…
My understanding of the idea of communism is that, basically, whatever it is that everyone in the group collectively produces is divided up equally among the group, with allowances for specific needs and the like.
Assuming that is correct, it would seem likely that some people are not going to fit that framework very well, since (as far as I am aware)humans do not respond in exactly the same way to a given stimuli.
That’s the “human nature” I was referring to.
But perhaps I have something wrong in there…
"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! "
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Tashah said:
Your brand of communism is strictly intellectual and abstract. In practice, communist governance is an abject and utter failure.
LOL this is just the Tasha way of saying "it sounds good on paper!" Why don't you start quoting from the Black Book next?
American said:
Stop with the evidence crap. It's common knowledge that people naturally look out for their own interests.
And the soldier that throws himself on top of the hand grenade and gets blown to smithereens is "look[ing] out for [his] own interests"? I don't think I've ever seen you make a post that was more than a few lines long that actually contained a real argument.
Karl Marx was full of ****, and sold people a bill of goods. It's as simple as that. And it IS as simple as that. Karl Marx was a liar, and Engels was delusional.
Ah, so he was trying to
profit off his writings? :lol:
spud meister said:
It's also common knowledge the people regularly look beyond themselves as individuals and will help out people for no benefit to themselves, if a person you cared about was in trouble, you would help them, you wouldn't sit back and think "what's in it for me?", the argument can be made that as of this dual nature of humanity, a balance of altruism and greed, that communism and capitalism seek to promote one with the exception of the other, communism promotes altruism, capitalism promotes greed, but to say people are naturally greedy, without saying they are naturally altruistic as well is disingenuous, and ignorant of understanding of human emotion.
I'm arguing that such a "dualism" doesn't even exist.
Human consciousness is not built around solely altruism and greed.
Moreover, I don't see how communism is based solely on altruism, or capitalism solely on greed. I think your argument is based on a few presumptions that are completely wrong.
Communism, the philosophy, not the failed implementation thereof, does encourage altruism, it is the epitome of societal selflessness, regardless of how crap it turns out in actuality.
I don't see how it's "selfless" at all. You're setting up quite the Manichean dichotomy here.
Any socio-economico-political system that develops is a result of humans gathering together in a society. The point of such gathering has its roots in the idea that group living is much more beneficial than individuals on their own, not only in terms of security but also in terms of productivity.
Group survival does not mean that the individual doesn't matter; quite the opposite, actually. Individuals join into groups in order to protect themselves and to improve their conditions so that they can thrive. Communism is a culmination of this.
Through the development to communism, the productive forces will be raised and resources will be utilized to such an extent that people will have more resources, more free time and more freedom of occupation (as "occupation" in the strict sense wouldn't exist) to realize their true potential (i.e. "from each according to his ability...")
It is not the subversion of the individual to the group but rather the
emancipation of the individual through providing them with the conditions to thrive creatively by participating in a society that is organized around the direct interests of the population as a whole as opposed to being subject to the whims of this or that class/party/section of society or to economic limitations as happens in capitalist society. It is the fusion of supply and demand by giving consumers direct control over the productive forces, thereby giving them the ability to produce
as needed (i.e. "to each according to his need").
