Communists.

asdasd

Tell me how this system of producing things according to "need" applies to the kitchen utensils and musical instruments above. Or, surprise surprise, is there actually no answer?

There is a clear answer. Humans dont need that much.

We need to eat. But not that much. So no meat. No restaurants.
We need clothing. But not that much. A proletatian style cultural revolution cloak is all we really need, if warm enough.
We need functional, ugly, buildings to live in, not admire.

Everything else we dont need. We dont need good food, nor beer, nor wine, nor individual styled clothing, nor cars, nor Elvis Presley, nor Television, nor an iPhone, nor a great piece of architecture, nor a dance, nor music, nor art, nor a Gothic church, nor a David Lynch movie nor anything "surplus". All is capitalistic.

The Marxists are right about what we need. they are wrong about what we want. They claim we only want what the "capitalists" tell us. We make them sell us what we want.

You can already see the totalitarian attitude here. They declaim Pol Pot, or the Cultural Revolution, but an ideology based on need, not want, removes all surplus, and removes all humanity and inevitably ends up like that.

What an ugly evil philosophy. What ugly evil mediocre bores who espose it. What vile suckers of human energy, and life they are.

Life is all about surplus. Real human life is not about what we need, but what we want. What we produce after we produce the necessaries. The Marxists are uttely vile.

DadaKopf

Is anyone reading this? I dont expect the righties to dig it, but it's an interesting discussion of the debates that raged in post-revolutionary Russia between Lenin and Stalin, and what the communist atrocities can mean for a rehabilitation of the 'communist hypothesis'.

ArphaRima

Having lived under communism for a few years I think I can safely say it is a disgusting form of government. Corrupt, inheritently unfair and definitely nowhere near the theoretical ideals in practice. Human nature sees to that.

Human nature and human endeavour will always see to that.

The ability (through the democratic vote) to change ones government through popular will is an ideal that keeps balance in the governance of a country. Without this balance the country and the people will work for the benefit of the small elite.

turgon

brianthebard wrote: »

silly strawmen and irrational arguments.

Far from being an irrational argument, Im trying to dismember the second fundamental of the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Define need.

We dont "need" to be having this debate, should the boards.ie be turned off? We dont "need" TV, is that gone? I dont "need" a car, is that gone?

How do we define how many kitchen utensils we "need"? Is it one fork per person? Or three? two knives? What about steak knives?

How many DVD's are allocated to each? Or books? I dont fancy having to curb my book collection, not that I "need" it anyway I suppose.

You might think Im rambling, but these are questions that apparently will all have to be answered with the introduction of communism. And who gets to decide what constitutes "need"? Does this person get more as a "reward"?

Its just ridiculous to assume you can plan out the lives of everyone according your own view. Its ridiculous to propose a system that forces people to get in touch with the produce of their labour, despite the fact that this gives little benefit and huge amounts of unproductively. Its ridicul9us to propose a system where things like advertising and charity promotion are illegal.

brianthebard

Turgon you know full well that a discussion about people's needs of kitchen utensils is nonsense and nothing to do with communism. Communism is not about planning out every single detail of people's lives.

turgon

How isnt it? You propose a system that causes absolutely no excess, therefore you have to plan to get the exact amount of things made. Which means you have to establish how much everybody needs. Right?

Because, remember now, one of your key criticisms so of the current system is that too much is produced, so this is fundamental to your ideology.

Or is this another thing in communism that left to "oh sure it will work out, we dont have to explain." Too many of those kind of things going on with this theory. And that why I dont trust ye. Because we are all to aware of the millions that have died each time communism has been started.

brianthebard

Where did I say "must cause absolutely no excess?" Like I said, strawmen.

nesf

asdasd wrote: »

BrianTheBard, whenever you are getting hammered in a debate, whenever the actually rality of how communism is to actually work is asked of you, you cry.

Grow some balls, man. Turgon is pointing out the absuridites in the Communist ideology, and you whine and cry about him not listening.

he is not your shrink. You are demanding the radical transfomration of society into something which increasingly more obviously is goint to be - even by the admission of your fellow travellers on this thread - to be a prison camp nightmare. And you dont have the guts to take criticism on the internet.

If you people really want to transform society - which invoves taking the wealth of everybody in the world and handing it to the State - you probably need to be tougher.

Seriously, do not get personal in replies. Attack the post not the poster please.

turgon

brianthebard wrote: »

Where did I say "must cause absolutely no excess?" Like I said, strawmen.

Your principle criticism of capitalism is that it creates excess. You see this as a problem. And I quote:

brianthebard wrote: »

Why do you need a massive surplus of cars in the world? What's wrong with having enough cars?

So you see communism as the solution to this.

Solutions by their very nature fix/change problems.

Therefore communism will not create excess.

Therefore communism will create only what is needed.

Therefore we need to define "what is needed."

It is exactly at the point when the practicality of your system is questioned that you falter.

brianthebard

You quote, but show me the quote where I said there can be absolutely no excess, or any kind, down to the last table fork? Please show me that post, not what you inferred in order to make your strawman argument.

asdasd

the problem is defining what is "necessary". An Elvis Presley record is not necessary. And a Coldplay album certainly not ( on that I am one with the Marxists).

Joycey

turgon wrote: »

So you see communism as the solution to this.

Solutions by their very nature fix/change problems.

Therefore communism will not create excess.

Therefore communism will create only what is needed.

Therefore we need to define "what is needed."

It is exactly at the point when the practicality of your system is questioned that you falter.

Your misunderstanding, certainly my position, I cant speak for BtB or anyone else, but Id imagine his as well.

What I am proposing is a system whereby the things which you are claiming I have a desire to regulate the production of, is produced in a more democratic, and just way. At no point have I mentioned having any kind of central authority overseeing things, let alone the kind of caricature which you are attempting to portray.

I would argue that it is the dehumanising influence of the inhumane working conditions which the majority of the population is currently subjected to that create the drive to consume "excessively". The way I would define excessively is not something which I wish to force on anyone else, but merely an opinion that I hold. If we take away the alienating working conditions, then individuals wont feel the need to feed whatever addictions which may currently be nurtured by the status quo, be it drugs, gambling, porn, consumerism or anything else.

Heres an interesting article on the addictive properties, both in that consuming is addictive, but also that it is individuals who are psychologically damaged who tend to be drawn to it, of consumerism, written by a psychologist (cant remember if its this thread I already linked to it, if it was then you clearly didnt read it so I might as well repost):

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/viewArticle/20446

asdasd

I would argue that it is the dehumanising influence of the inhumane working conditions which the majority of the population is currently subjected to that create the drive to consume "excessively". The way I would define excessively is not something which I wish to force on anyone else, but merely an opinion that I hold. If we take away the alienating working conditions, then individuals wont feel the need to feed whatever addictions which may currently be nurtured by the status quo, be it drugs, gambling, sex or consumerism.

And I would argue that:


1) Use dehumanising to describe modern work practices is a value laden term far from reality.
2) that addictive personalities can exist anywhere and will exist under "socialism" ( if they can find anything to be addicted to) . Addition is defined by genetics. The scientific sources on this are immense.
3) That consumerism is not addiction. it is people buying stuff they want.
4) That "alienating" as used in the Marxist terminology is jargon.
5) that people who can't be alientated from their work - i.e. someone who works for himself, or lives on shares or profit, also comsume, or engage in cosumerism.

turgon

brianthebard wrote: »

You quote, but show me the quote where I said there can be absolutely no excess, or any kind, down to the last table fork? Please show me that post, not what you inferred in order to make your strawman argument.

But you state you want a lot less excess than the current system. So how do you find out how much we need so as to narrow this excess?

turgon

Joycey wrote: »

What I am proposing is a system whereby the things which you are claiming I have a desire to regulate the production of, is produced in a more democratic, and just way. At no point have I mentioned having any kind of central authority overseeing things, let alone the kind of caricature which you are attempting to portray.

So everyone is going to come together and decide what needs to be made? Under what criteria?

And I dont see how being forbidden to make advertisements and get charity direct debits is "just." I see it as tyranny.

How can any system whereby the production of things is closely controlled not involve central control?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

So to be to the point BtB, you declare surplus a problem, what is your solution?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

DadaKopf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Zizek condemns Lenin as well as Stalin for the atrocities committed by them and in their name, not just in that article but in other publications. Your above quote still doesnt negate the historical evidence here suggesting (and I would only venture so far as to say) the reality of the communist revolution was much more complex than we really understand. It's funny how you call it 'relativistic claptrap', because Zizek is one of those people trying to get back to 'truth'. He doesn't shy away from calling things 'pure evil', including Stalin, the Nazis, etc.

As for those quotes, they're very entertaining. Thanks for the link! He does sound like a great guy, I'd love to go to the pub with him some time. But come on, they're not 'facts', they're comments, ironic, referencing psychoanalytical views on aspects of the human psyche. I dont see what this 'proves'. And who bloody cares if he likes the smell of decaying nature? Even for wine enthusiasts, 'humus' is a prized aroma in many French wines.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm aware of all this. Are you aware that since the end of the USSR the life expectancy in free market Russia has decreased? How do you account for that? You also remember that I said that state control of production is not enough to make a state communist?
You say liberalism increases quality of life and prosperity?Can you give an example where this is the case, and where it has not come at the cost of another country or people?
You know full well Df, that turgon is creating a strawman argument with this utensils stuff, I thought you cared more for debating than to indulge that sort of thing.

turgon

brianthebard wrote: »

Are you aware that since the end of the USSR the life expectancy in free market Russia has decreased?

Really? Are you saying you survived longer in the USSR? Because the, erm, gulags would seem to show something different.

Either way I dont see what the USSR has to do with anything. You have said it wasnt communist so Im assuming it wasnt and simply probing into your plans for creating communism.

brianthebard wrote: »

You know full well Df, that turgon is creating a strawman argument with this utensils stuff, I thought you cared more for debating than to indulge that sort of thing.

How am I?

You said capitalism produced excess and that communism would fix this. I asked how this would apply. You have failed, instead appending strawman onto every post.

If your not going to indulge in specific example then please at least tell how these goods are produced so as not to create excess.

Because the only way this seems to be is to anticipate need. But defining that need is what I have the problem with.

DadaKopf

Y'see, the thing is, there are different ideas about how a communist order would come about. What can be done today to bring about that phase, etc. We all here know how even before, during and after the Russian revolution there were disagreements about this - some arguing to let things take their course, others arguing for a vanuard to kickstart things.

Regardless, capitalism cannot continue due to a number of contradictions that have been continuously deferred. Growth with finite resources and destruction of the ecosystem being one of these contradictions. Thing is, if the environment cannot support the system we have, then something will have to replace it. This is where this 'discussion' (but really it's people banging their heads off a blood-splattered wall) should be focusing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I said examples that did not prosper at the expense of others, which both of these examples did.

DadaKopf

Change the record, will you DF?

You're getting boring. You know as well as us that other ideologies and people have been just as capable of mass murder. Murder is naughty. You don't see anyone here proposing naughty things like mass murder.

What we should be talking about is how our ideas of a better future differ. That'd be the mature thing to do. Otherwise, I'm done with your and turgon's sub-FOX News screechy wobbly-head blather. Differences of opinion are fine if people are willing to explore topics, but not when the purpose of this form is disrupted by your shouty style of anti-debate. I've looked through your posts and you really haven't justified any of your positions when challenged, just sligned mud for your own amusement.It's just a waste of energy.

turgon

DadaKopf wrote: »

You don't see anyone here proposing naughty things like mass murder.

Yes, I dont see ye proposing anything practical.

Such as how things get made.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What question? Anyways you still haven't answered mine. And I recall you giving out to me for using a rolleyes emoticon before and refusing to continue in a thread. Its pretty bad form to complain about it one time and then use it another time yourself.
But I'll give you another go, give us an example of a liberal state who's prosperity did not come at the expense of another country or people. Clearly Britain and America in the nineteenth century are the exact opposite of your theory.

DadaKopf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Seriously, it doesn't matter what references I or anyone else chooses, if you disagree with a position, you'll find some ad hominem reason to junk them. I always give people on boards.ie the dignity of taking their sources as seriously as my own. To be honest, it's you who's being intellectually incompetent and dishonest here. Irrational, even.