I'm thinking about joining the Communist Party

[s|k]

What do you guys think? I hate wealth. I have made arguments for capitalism (I like gadgets), but maybe I'm willing to throw that out the window after standing in line waiting to have my baggage checked at LAX. The difference between the rich and the poor just stood out dramatically to me. (The fact that first class ticket holders got to go in front of a one hour long line probably had something to do with it). It's just sick that people pay $3,000 for a Luis Vuitton bag when they can have a similar quality bag for without a brand name for much much less and feed 50 families for like a year through oxfam.

After the LAX experience and watching people in fine designer coats and great skin and beautiful luggage getting to step in front of the disheveled crowd of coach ticket holders I took the city bus from the airport home (with my wife, I'm married!). The people on that bus were such a dramatic different slice of life. The bus stopped outside of a prison and someone who had just gotten out got in with his cardboard box of belongings. He sat next to another guy who after listening to their conversation had been in prison at sometime too. Those guys left and then some other people got on the bus and talked about a person they both knew from a drug rehab program they had been too. The were, in their own words, 'glad to be above ground, and thank the lord Jesus everyday.'

I want to become a librarian and help people. I want to spread literacy, make information freely available, I want to help troubled youth and people in prison make something worthwhile of their lives. I am also thinking of joining the Communist Party right now. Maybe that's a phase, but wanting to help people isn't. I will do that.

Here's a link to the Communist Party of the USA's FAQ: http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/511/#question26 (kind of interesting).

[Knight Theamion]

Before you wonder further into the world of theories, social developments and differences, ask yourself the following questions:

You do realize what Communism is?
Can you mention me one nation where the 'communistic expiriment' worked?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

You do realize what Communism is?

Do you?

Anyway, s|k, obviously trying new things is generally a positive step and if approached correctly this would help you as a human being on a number of levels. However, I would say that you will probably find the following if you did join any Communist Party :

1. A great many of them are obsessed with theory, not action.

2. Most are obsessed with navel gazing "the left" in general. The schisms between the various micro parties fills many pages of their publications. You know that bit in Life of Brian where the "People's Front of Judea" are obsessed with the "Judean's People's Front"? That is the left. And it's not even an exaggeration.

3. Some of their politics has been unduly influenced by paranoia. It is true that far-left parties have faced near continual attacks from the 30's right up to the demise of the USSR. This is documented quite openly by bourgeoisie sources. However, the reaction has often been to stifle debate, have closed publications, limited internal democracy, etc. In other words, precisely the wrong response. Sometimes they will have ludicrous internal authoritarianism like "We don't really want comrades to see x or y particular film" which would be laughable if some didn't take it seriously.

4. They are obsessed with the past. Entire parties will be split over whether the USSR was a "state capitalist economy" or "degenerated workers state" or something else. While reflecting on these things is fairly important, does it really matter at this point in history what terms we use?

5. Many of them have disproportionate amounts of cranks, weirdo's and crazies. This is true of any social movement on the outskirts, and has been worsened by the lack of external debate some of these people get. It's probably not as bad these days, but a lot of people on the far left have only had serious discussions with other people on the far left or trolls on alt.politics.socialism.trotsky (read that if you want some of the worst drivel ever written, if it still exists).

And I say all this as someone who would call himself a Communist.

You're probably better of joining a loose-knit community group, or green party or something like that. The official parties are still all a bit rubbish for now.

[KoeN]

"i'm pondering about joining some neonazi party, because German highways are the best invention since sliced bread!"

[SilverSmoke]

Just let him experience this phase Theamion

[madi]

wont work, people by their very nature are too greedy (it is part of why we are a successful species)

people dont want to live for the common good because they all want the best and there isnt enough to match our greed (i will have five hundred million pairs of jimmy choos my good man and make it snappy)
so you have to force them, which means someone must be in charge,
which leads to corruption and general misery amoung the population.

[madi]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Lets assume (for fun) that you have thought about this answer to some degree and haven't just given the first answer that came into your head.
... I assume you are not asserting that we are living in a corruption free, non-authoritarian society where no one is miserable.

you must have an awful lot of spare time to write all that in the middle of the day. i didnt bother explaining the background to my thoughts as i am to busy earning a living so that i can buy shoes and handbags.

people are corrupt and greedy and grabbing and manipulative and quite a lot would happily trample their granny for a louis vuitton handbag, and there are plenty who would wipe out a city or country or race to control their resources.
humans arent very nice to each other, what do you propose to do with us horrid people in your star trek everyone working for the common good world?

[Charjerk]

Originally Posted by madi

people are corrupt and greedy and grabbing and manipulative and quite a lot would happily trample their granny for a louis vuitton handbag, and there are plenty who would wipe out a city or country or race to control their resources.
humans arent very nice to each other, what do you propose to do with us horrid people in your star trek everyone working for the common good world?

There is no reason to be surprised. What else did you expect? We are living in a class based, non-egalitarian society. The horrid elements dig their own graves. History is the best witness.

[madi]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Its like I wrote a bunch of stuff and you didn't even read it. Basic literacy is a pre-requisite to this sort of discussion honey. Where's your evidence? Where have I asserted that people have to be different than you say?

I am at work but its quiet and this is a well rehearsed response to the same tired cliche's.

I neve said that people were all nice to each other, I have no problem with horrid people, I don't consider myself to be any less horrid than enyone else.

i didnt respond fully to your long winded reply as i didnt do more than skim through it, and as it would appear to be a knee jerk well rehearsed response it would seem that i decided right.

my opinion is that communism is against human nature, which i havent backed up with evidence as i couldnt be arsed to write it down as i am too busy being rovolted by the grubby masses and buying shoes.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by madi

i didnt respond fully to your long winded reply as i didnt do more than skim through it, and as it would appear to be a knee jerk well rehearsed response it would seem that i decided right.

my opinion is that communism is against human nature, which i havent backed up with evidence as i couldnt be arsed to write it down as i am too busy being rovolted by the grubby masses and buying shoes.

This is incorrect simply from an evolutionary standpoint. True story.

Society is obviously based on more than a system of just greed - the selfish gene is obviously in operation, kin selection, whatever.

[madi]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

This is incorrect simply from an evolutionary standpoint. True story.

Society is obviously based on more than a system of just greed - the selfish gene is obviously in operation, kin selection, whatever.

its more than just any one thing that made us take over the planet, we have thumbs for a start.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

If you are referring to the Soviet Union or China, well it has been demonstrated at length on these forums and elsewhere that this is a bastardization of Communism and in fact Stalinism has much more in common with fascism than the works of Marx.

Unfortunately this ignores the simple fact that Lenin grounded his theory solidly in Marx's writings. And Stalinism was simply the genocidal extension of the system Lenin (And Trotsky, by the way) had been pivotal in establishing.

You call it "bastardisation"; I call it legitimate (Albeit horribly mistaken) interpretation.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Unfortunately this ignores the simple fact that Lenin grounded his theory solidly in Marx's writings.

And Stalinism was simply the genocidal extension of the system Lenin (And Trotsky, by the way) had been pivotal in establishing.

Using this sort of "logic" we could probably blame Darwin for NAZI'ism or something equally absurd.

Even by your usual (dreadful) standard of anti-Communist posts, this is below par.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Unfortunately this ignores the simple fact that Lenin grounded his theory solidly in Marx's writings. And Stalinism was simply the genocidal extension of the system Lenin (And Trotsky, by the way) had been pivotal in establishing.

You call it "bastardisation"; I call it legitimate (Albeit horribly mistaken) interpretation.

If you had tried to read Marx and Lenin before posting, you might not have made a fool out of yourself (again).

Lenin's ideas are not the same as Marx. Lenin didnt even get Hegel before 1914 or something...
Then there is notable differences between the two, like the theories on stages. Lenin wrote that you can go from feudalism to capitalism straight away, while Marx thesis was that you had to go from feudalims to capitalism and then have a revolution and go into socialism.

[Charjerk]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

while Marx thesis was that you had to go from feudalims to capitalism and then have a revolution and go into socialism.

I think this part is most controversial since Marx made contradicting statements. The only place he said something like that is the Critique of the Gotha Programme. In other places he said that socialism will appear out of the interstices of capitalism, which makes the issue/place of a revolution really questionable. You can refer to some Zmag writers.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Charjerk

I think this part is most controversial since Marx made contradicting statements. The only place he said something like that is the Critique of the Gotha Programme. In other places he said that socialism will appear out of the interstices of capitalism, which makes the issue/place of a revolution really questionable. You can refer to some Zmag writers.

I think we can all safely assume that Russia that 1917 Russia fulfilled none of these requirements.

[Charjerk]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

I think we can all safely assume that Russia that 1917 Russia fulfilled none of these requirements.

Such historical experiments are merely quantitative explosions, the experience of which should help the world to prepare the path to real qualitative change. At least most people know what not to do.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

If you had tried to read Marx and Lenin before posting, you might not have made a fool out of yourself (again).

Lenin's ideas are not the same as Marx. Lenin didnt even get Hegel before 1914 or something...
Then there is notable differences between the two, like the theories on stages. Lenin wrote that you can go from feudalism to capitalism straight away, while Marx thesis was that you had to go from feudalims to capitalism and then have a revolution and go into socialism.

Things look closer together the further away from them youre standing. For people who have no real affinity towards Communism, the differences between the ideas of Marx and the ideas of someone like Lenin or Trotsky are minimal - although they disagree on specific doctrinal points, they tend to share a common ground and agree on most fundamentals. In other words, its a family quarrel. Marxists can argue for hours about how to sanitise certain parts of Marx's writing from pseudo-Hegelian metaphysics, or discuss various competiting theories on why the 'inevitable' revolution didnt occur. But to outsiders, its all pretty much the same.

Similarly, I would assume that to a Creationist, the evolutionary theory of Darwin and the modern theory probably look identical, despite the large amounts of differences that someone who studies it will find (Darwin was wrong about many things). I recognise very little differnece between fascism, national socialism and soviet communism because they agree on what I view as the essentials (largely pertaining the role of the individual in relation to state). Yet to a proponent of one of these doctrines, they would look as dissimilar as red and blue.

[NEWSBOT3]

In Soviet Russia, dna modifies you!

[eJohn]

Forgive my naivness and overriding lack of knowledge before i start.

Personally, i admire the ideals of marxism / communism and think they have a lot to teach us. If nothing else, marxism's enduring use (imo) is to remind us of the scale of the differences between the rich and poor, and remind us of the inequality of the system as a whole. I do personally believe that capitalism is (perhaps) unsustainable and (definitely) self-combusting - you only have to walk down a street to see the differences between rich and poor.

Anyone who claims capitalism is a system of oppurtunity is wide of the mark and/or middle class. But for my two-cents, i'd have to say that communism/marxism is not a system of incentive. I appreciate your predominantly positive views of human nature dante/toccata but my experience of human life is that any a "desire for the common good" doesnt really exist.

Indeed, the saddest thing for me, is seeing all those who are crushed by the system, poor, struggling to get by - instead of a desire to see a fairer system, they desire to be at the other end of it.

[s|k]

I don't think I've read any Marx beyond some social theory stuff, the only explicit economics I read have been browsing through 'The Wealth of Nations' which is probably a few centuries out of date..I don't need a formal education in economics to see a disparity in the lives of people. I think that disparity is a more than just a lapse of judgement. I also believe that it is avoidable.

Beyond voting and writing a few letters to politicans every now and then I'm not very politically active, I'm not looking to participate in activism, but I'm willing to at least support a cause that does more than just acknowledge the extent of inequity. I think support can go along way...

[Charjerk]

Support can go a long way. But, don't you think in order to change things it would be better if individuals start from themselves. Isn't this what we need as a response to the world of war against all. Revolution in attitude, thinking, feeling, relating, in other words, revolution in brains are the only things that can ensure the continuity of any actual change, or to bring it about in the first place.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Charjerk

Support can go a long way. But, don't you think in order to change things it would be better if individuals start from themselves. Isn't this what we need as a response to the world of war against all. Revolution in attitude, thinking, feeling, relating, in other words, revolution in brains are the only things that can ensure the continuity of any actual change, or to bring it about in the first place.

I just want equitable access to resources, and an educated, democratic and classless society.

[madi]

Originally Posted by s|k

I just want equitable access to resources, and an educated, democratic and classless society.

why?

[Charjerk]

Awareness is not enough. What is required is constructive self-criticism and criticism. I belive that revolution in mind has to go hand in hand with changes in the real world. I don't know a lot about its Hegelian aspect, but I agree that revolution in heads would only be one sided solution. Simultaneous change must be the solution. Lets face it. It is individuals, the whole society that keeps this system in its place. Are we not all tainted. Life is a fight. I don't think it is possible to talk about individual freedom or non-freedom. Our existence is all about a struggle to breath in the space of freedom that we created for ourselves again through struggle, and at the same time try to enlarge that sphere.

[mist]

i'm curious. as far as i can tell from your previous posts, part of communism is that everyone has an equal say in how things are run.

this would seem to require an awful lot of voting. how do you facilitate the voting of millions of people on every issue? also, who decides what the issues are? how do you stop a comunist 'government' from stalling under the weight of ammendments and attachments to things being voted on?

[Charjerk]

in fact we have the society we have because of Capitalism.[/quote]

Actually, Marx says the opposite.

[Charjerk]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Care to elaborate.

"The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk"

Very interesting!

As I said, I don't know much about Hegel. But I guess the above quote means that human actions do not come about authomatically, naturally. It is the accumulation of experience, knowledge and therefore escalation of consciousness that prepares the terrain for the owl to spread its wings. Or can something get better before getting worst! That is the way Marx looked at the matter I believe.

I would be interested in the ways in which that quote can be used to explain the movements of human consciousness.

[Charjerk]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well indeed. You sound like my ex-fiance.

Thanks. although it is not very encouraging to sound like somebody's ex. Well... I am a Marxian who had to know about Hegel too.

Sorry to cause bad memories to surface, mate.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Charjerk

Thanks. although it is not very encouraging to sound like somebody's ex. Well... I am a Marxian who had to know about Hegel too.

Sorry to cause bad memories to surface, mate.

shit, i want to be a marxian.

also, madi and to some degree mist seem to be arguing their corners by respondin to every counterargument with a progressively sillier argument.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by s|k

I want to become a librarian and help people. I want to spread literacy, make information freely available, I want to help troubled youth and people in prison make something worthwhile of their lives. I am also thinking of joining the Communist Party right now. Maybe that's a phase, but wanting to help people isn't. I will do that.)

Why don't you just join a decent charity

Originally Posted by madi

humans arent very nice to each other, what do you propose to do with us horrid people in your star trek everyone working for the common good world?

Help you.

[mist]

thus far, madi seems to have a fair point, somewhere in the overstatement

is it not human nature to want more at the expense of others?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by mist

thus far, madi seems to have a fair point, somewhere in the overstatement

is it not human nature to want more at the expense of others?

Is it not human nature to help each other?


Phrases like "human nature" are silly and apply some bizzare continuity over thousands of years and generalise far too much to actually mean anything.

[Chika]

s|k,
Sometimes its eerie that you are american.

[mist]

depends. to help the 'clan' possibly, to help total strangers, i'd say not particularly. unless there's something in it of course.

in this case, i meant human nature in the "if you got a load of people and ask them what they'd do, this would be the predominant answer" type way, only cutting out all the lying and the people giving the 'correct' answer

[Chika]

Originally Posted by mist

depends. to help the 'clan' possibly, to help total strangers, i'd say not particularly. unless there's something in it of course.

What about the people who donated millions for tsunami victims?

[mist]

Originally Posted by Chika

What about the people who donated millions for tsunami victims?

any idea what percentage of the population donated? (i don't, btw)
how many of those who did donate did so to make themselves feel better?

[Chika]

Originally Posted by mist

any idea what percentage of the population donated? (i don't, btw)
how many of those who did donate did so to make themselves feel better?

Generally, you can't count "to make me feel better" as a reason to do something. I naturally want to feel good helping someone. I wouldn't feel good helping someone rob a bank.
I doubt someone took percentages, but I do know that several million was donated, and thats a lot.

[mist]

Originally Posted by Chika

Generally, you can't count "to make me feel better" as a reason to do something. I naturally want to feel good helping someone. I wouldn't feel good helping someone rob a bank.

i'd have felt "to make me feel better" as a fairly key reason for doing things. infact, i'd say most of the other reasons for doing things boil down to it if you try hard enough.

I doubt someone took percentages, but I do know that several million was donated, and thats a lot.

i doubt it too. however, with 60M people ish in the country it's not that much really. i seem to remember us giving a billion a year extra to the eu this week (?) compared to that, several million is peanuts.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Chika

Generally, you can't count "to make me feel better" as a reason to do something..

Thats pretty much the main reason for everything I do, whether directly or indirectly.

I'm afraid I don't know too much about communism beyond some basic tenets, which I think T&F has already stated. It does sound nice and all, but the practicalities of things are where I have found it to fall down.

Not that I think the current system "works" to any long-term extent (whilst not knowing too much about communism I have read and agreed with a fair bit of Marxism), but I have the common problem of having no idea what I would replace it with.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by mist

how many of those who did donate did so to make themselves feel better?

On some level, all of them. What on Earth difference does that make?

[mist]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

On some level, all of them. What on Earth difference does that make?

i find that people's motives are often as important as their actions, particularly if you're trying to use one of their actions to predict others.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by mist

depends. to help the 'clan' possibly, to help total strangers, i'd say not particularly. unless there's something in it of course.

People give money to charity ever year. Saying there's "something in it" is confusing the point. Logically speaking nobody chooses to do anything which they don't want to do (it's tautological dude!)

in this case, i meant human nature in the "if you got a load of people and ask them what they'd do, this would be the predominant answer" type way, only cutting out all the lying and the people giving the 'correct' answer

You have to give circumstances though. Also it depends on the people you survey.

[mist]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

People give money to charity ever year. Saying there's "something in it" is confusing the point. Logically speaking nobody chooses to do anything which they don't want to do (it's tautological dude!)

oh, i agree with you. there are people who give money to charity every year. there are people who give huge amounts. there are people who do it because they think it's the right thing to do, there are people who do it because they want to do it. my point is that i don't believe the latter catagory are in the majority, and i think they would have to be for communism (at least, my understanding of communism - which is admittedly failrly limited) to work.

You have to give circumstances though. Also it depends on the people you survey.

i was assuming the various statistical proprioties were in place.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by mist

oh, i agree with you. there are people who give money to charity every year. there are people who give huge amounts. there are people who do it because they think it's the right thing to do, there are people who do it because they want to do it. my point is that i don't believe the latter catagory are in the majority, and i think they would have to be for communism (at least, my understanding of communism - which is admittedly failrly limited) to work.

People giving money to charity because they think it's the right thing to do and people who give money to charity because they want to do it are the same category of people dude.

i was assuming the various statistical proprioties were in place.

Actually you'd probably have to survey everyone in the world. And you have to have an actual question with actual circumstances. A lot of people would give different answers to would you download music from the internet (or would you take a fiver from some random rich guy) and would steal a loaf of bread from a starving family.

[SilverSmoke]

Human nature is our ability to set and create our own needs and believes.

[mist]

Originally Posted by jbg

People giving money to charity because they think it's the right thing to do and people who give money to charity because they want to do it are the same category of people dude.

i disagree. can't think of a good direct example, but an abstract one would be that i got out of bed this morning to come to work because it was the right thing to do, not becuase i wanted to do it.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by mist

i disagree. can't think of a good direct example, but an abstract one would be that i got out of bed this morning to come to work because it was the right thing to do, not becuase i wanted to do it.

Nah dude. You have to think it's the right thing to do. If you think it's the right thing to do you that's because you have a moral system that indicates that it's the right thing to do. It's enlightened self interest as opposed to unenlightened self interest. We do things we don't enjoy all the time because we believe that the consequences will be positive overall.

[mist]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Nah dude. You have to think it's the right thing to do. If you think it's the right thing to do you that's because you have a moral system that indicates that it's the right thing to do. It's enlightened self interest as opposed to unenlightened self interest. We do things we don't enjoy all the time because we believe that the consequences will be positive overall.

i did think it was the right thing to do, however had you shown up and offered me an extra hour in bed (oo er missis?) than i'd have been a happy bunny at 7:30 this morning

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by mist

i did think it was the right thing to do, however had you shown up and offered me an extra hour in bed (oo er missis?) than i'd have been a happy bunny at 7:30 this morning

Indeed I am sure you would have. However the fact that reality is sometimes unpleasant does not mean that the concept of free will is null and void.