Curse

sino-soviet · May 14, 2005, 10:06 PM // 22:06

Brainwashing and mass media can affect the human mind in so many ways, I think it is entirely possible to bypass greed and corruption.

And there has never been a truly communist state, and none have even claimed to this. True conditions to lead from socialism to communism have not yet existed, so there is no incident of communist "failure".

My views:
HUMANITY - Humans are born as a blank slate, the only primal instinct being survival. People believe anything they are brought up with, such as christianity. In a capitalist system and previous systems, greed was a compulsory facet of survival. However, under communism, greed is no longer necessary for survival, due to the fair distribution of wealth, rather than the polarization of wealth. If it is no longer necessary, it would, again IMO, fade out over time.
As for laziness, workplaces would be democratized. That is, rather than a boss saying who works too little, it would be the workers themselves. As the laziness of ones damages the other workers, they could bring him up for not working hard enough. If he persists, they could vote for his removal. Therefore everyone would be encouraged by each other to work as hard as is needed.
As with many things, I cannot give evidence to support my opinions as the conditions in which to test them, socialism, have never been brought about. The claims about communism being anti democracy is completely falsified, for communism is true democracy, in sharp contrast to western bourgeousie democracy. What kind of democracy exists in a country where you can vote only between millionaires?

GOVERNMENT - In a Marxist view of history, capitalism follows feudalism, as communism will follow capitalism. However, unlike previous progressions of historical era, which have been elite led, this will be worker led. Thus, while individual countries previously could progress alone, as there was tight control by elites to maintain stability, this is not the case with the communist progression. Thus this revolution cannot occur on a country level, or tight controls must exist, leading to hell holes like NK. The communist progression MUST, if it is to be successful, worldwide.
So, firstly all countries must be capitalist if there is to be a worldwide progression to communism. Thus countries like the ones you suggested, and many more, must become fully capitalist before the progression can occur.
And also, in my opinion, as well as being capitalist, these nations must for some time be liberal nations. If not, the citizens of these nations will not have experienced the rights and freedoms that should exist under real communism. And if they haven’t, it is too easy for opportunists to become dictatorships in these countries, as the populace cannot tell the difference.

PRODUCTION - Within the workplace the workers will have the power to elect, and recall, managers. These people will work to ensure such things. If they abuse their power, the workers can recall at any time the manager. This is not creating a hierarchy in society, as the managers are under the control of the workers. Nor is the manager beneath the worker, as they have put themselves forward for the position. This also has the benefit of people putting themselves forward for such jobs because they enjoy the work or the challenge, rather than simply doing it for the money. This COULD be of benefit in many areas, as if you do it for the enjoyment, you are more likely to put more effort in, rather than doing as little as you can for the money you get.
A Bangladeshi worker may vote on decisions that affect a Kansas worker in the same industry if for example they were deciding on the CEO of their industry. If, and some communists are against this, there is a world council, forum not government style, that argues the best courses of action for humanity (any decisions to be ratified by referendum, and delegates permanently subject to recall) there may also voting in one region of the world that affects another.

LAWS - This is also another sticking point between communists. I believe that we would need a period where laws are still around, at least until this utopian dream starts becoming reality. These laws would be formed by an elected local council (the public would be free to engage in the arguments of its formation), ratified by referendum, enforced by council appointed and locally ratified, militias, led by an elected sheriff/mayor. Laws will be interpreted by elected judges. Rulings could be overturned by a qualified majority of the public. As for guns, I personally believe that anyone that isn't a criminal or insane, should be allowed a gun, following a six month course at a gun club to train them in the weapons use. This prevents any opportunists deciding that they are going to re-establish a hierarchy against the will of the people, as they can revolt.

LEADERSHIP - There is no need for there to be a 'leader', after about 1820 and prior to Churchill, Britain had no single leader and was lead by a cabinet government of about 20 people. Prominent figures did emerge, but this was not for their leadership, rather their charisma, intelligence and the policies of the government of the time. It was only after WWII that the PM really became the focus of government. The same can be said for the US, it was only from Roosevelt’s expansion of the White House and the Presidents duties that the Presidential office truly overtook Congress.
However, I still haven’t said there is no leadership, and I agree to an extent, there should be some leadership of sorts. This would be the most intelligent people of society being elected to councils, in order for them to publicly debate with each other the best ways in which things should be done. However, before they can enact there plans the plans would require the mandate of the public through a referendum. Therefore there is some leadership, in that the most intelligent people, after being elected, can put forward their views to society, and its scrutiny.

If someone decided to establish their own city outside of the communist sphere, that’s fine, as long as they aren't planting themselves on top of something essential like an oil supply. But I doubt any workers would go with them voluntarily, because why would they work for someone else in a different system, where you get less for your work, when they can work for themselves under the communist sphere. If however they decided to kidnap people to put into slavery, once this was recognized the councils from each area could co-ordinate their militias against the new city.

DISTRIBUTION - I've separated this because it is such a big part of the new system. Again, this is only one way of doing things, the one I agree with at the moment. One way is the voucher system. Replacing money, the vouchers allow people choice over what they want for the work they have done, while preventing the accumulation of wealth into the hands of individuals or minorities. This is because the vouchers will be dated, and if not used in time become invalid. The vouchers could be divided into essentials, such as food and clothes vouchers, plus luxuries vouchers for less important things to living but still important to life, such as computer games or extra food for when you have parties. These vouchers would be handed in at main supermarket type areas for the goods you wanted.

That system has been suggested for ages now, and has flaws, but these can be remedied by technology. So instead of using vouchers, dated credits could be put onto a credit card. This prevents people stealing vouchers. To get the credits you could swipe the card through a machine that will only provide one set of fresh credits per day or per week to each card.

SUPPLY NETWORKING - As with the workplace, people could be elected from each workplace and each district ward to ensure each industry provided for its workers and each town could co-ordinate with each other on the maintenance of the infrastructure necessary for distribution.
As for people taking something on the side for themselves, this would be prevented in the same way it is now, policing, but by the electoral accountable militias, rather than government controlled police that work for the government rather than the people. As well as measures internal to the industries, as there is now, such as checking the stock before it leaves the depot and ensuring it all ends up at the destination.

As for a socialist, who is to say there has never been a successful one? Sweden, for one, is an example of an isolated and socialistic state where the standard of living is fairly high.

Devil's Dictionary · May 14, 2005, 10:16 PM // 22:16

Socialism works. Badly, yet it does.
So far nobody succeeded in communism.
This speaks for itself.

As soon as there will be a working prototype of the communist society, I will instantly change my mind.

Quote:

LAWS - This is also another sticking point between communists. I believe that we would need a period where laws are still around, at least until this utopian dream starts becoming reality. These laws would be formed by an elected local council (the public would be free to engage in the arguments of its formation), ratified by referendum, enforced by council appointed and locally ratified, militias, led by an elected sheriff/mayor. Laws will be interpreted by elected judges. Rulings could be overturned by a qualified majority of the public.

A version of Socialism. You won't even have time to drink a cup of tea to see corruption appear.

sino-soviet · May 14, 2005, 10:20 PM // 22:20

Socialism is functionable and efficient in Sweden and other Nordic countries. Changed your mind yet? The soviet Union after Stalin was not some hell hole as propaganda made it out to be. Take it from someone who lived in Russia and has extensive contacts with people there. People enjoyed benefits from the outside world, people could go out and enjoy their lives. yet remain true to the role that being a citizen gave to them. Why? Because it was given some time to adjust. A true socialist state is not something which happens overnight.

Devil's Dictionary · May 14, 2005, 10:26 PM // 22:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by sino-soviet

Socialism works well in Sweden and other Nordic countries.

I wouldn't call "Constitutional Monarchy" "socialism".

Quote:

The soviet Union after Stalin was not a bad place to be.

Now that's good news! Too bad my family won't agree with you, same for all the russian people I know.

Inde · May 14, 2005, 10:33 PM // 22:33

mmm - blaming the US? Not really. Im simply stating the communism was never allowed to be. McCarthy anyone?

Looking at the UN's list of 'best places to live', it seems that the usual suspects are the Scandanavian countries, Switzerland, and Canada.

I stand by my Orwellian comment. National ID cards to track wherever you go? Throwing suspected terrorists without due process? An enemy always ready to attack? Its 1984, 25 years late.

Devil's Dictionary · May 14, 2005, 10:38 PM // 22:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

Looking at the UN's list of 'best places to live', it seems that the usual suspects are the Scandanavian countries, Switzerland, and Canada.

Yes, that's true. The crime-rate and level of life is best in Canada and Scandinavian countries. It's *very* expensive living in Switzerland, though.

Quote:

I stand by my Orwellian comment. National ID cards to track wherever you go? Throwing suspected terrorists without due process? An enemy always ready to attack? Its 1984, 25 years late.

I was not aware of the first, but the latter may be dismissed as war-time situation. 9/11 also caused a surge in national paranoia.

I think I am going offtopic.

sino-soviet · May 14, 2005, 10:42 PM // 22:42

Sweden is a socialistic country in the sense that the government taxes citizens extensively. I believe Marx did claim that in the end, government does seize property and business. Supposedly, communism thereby follows. As for the post Stalin era, life saw some progression. Difficult? yes. Of course, but improved and is still improving. Perhaps its the declining influence of certain minority groups in Russia.

Inde · May 14, 2005, 11:16 PM // 23:16

Death: Expensive is a relative term. Health care and other are covered by taxes in such countries, thus making them 'expensive' to live in.

Paranoia is not an excuse for ignorance. But yes drifting into OT

adam.skinner · May 15, 2005, 12:21 AM // 00:21

We don't live in an ideal world. That's what communism doesn't understand, what people who promote communism don't get: people are messed up.

The people in power (and there always are) will abuse their power. Communism is destroyed by the corruption of the human heart.

Don't think people are inherently good. They're not.

Sekkira · May 15, 2005, 12:56 AM // 00:56

I fully agree with you Sino on your concept of Communism and would accept this with open arms if it were put into place. However, I also agree with Adam Skinner. *I* may be able to accept this system, but I don't speak for the rest of the world.

Also, the one thing that I completely disagree with you on is the whole management of money, the basis of communism. Everyone is payed the same. No, just no. The people who work for their education and spend years with this effort are to be payed the same as someone with no education. I'm sure there are some who are doing it for enjoyment, such as the engineer and scientist mentality (they'll retire and be at work the next day). But with this system put in place, is it then really worth the effort of all that work? There is no incentive to put that in and the economy collapses again.

I'm sure there is a way of dealing with this, perhaps people do get payed more then others. However we all saw how this worked in Russia's "Some people are more equal then others" mentality. As I said before, I don't mind if everyone pretty much gets paid a flat rate which is plenty to survive and live in luxury, aside from the ones with education who put their hard work and effort to do their job properly; but I don't speak for the rest of the world. Also, that type of thing can very easily fall back into capitalism which is what we were trying to get away from in the first place.

Inde · May 15, 2005, 02:12 AM // 02:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by adam.skinner

We don't live in an ideal world. That's what communism doesn't understand, what people who promote communism don't get: people are messed up.

The people in power (and there always are) will abuse their power. Communism is destroyed by the corruption of the human heart.

Don't think people are inherently good. They're not.

Agreed, and thats my related point: capitalism also does not work, because of corruption and greed [that is a major part of what I got from that link]. Capitalism needs boundaries - something it does not have right now.

Lasher Dragon · May 15, 2005, 02:54 AM // 02:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tharkon

You all -in west, have heard lies about the system of communism and lies about your own system of capitalism and liberalism. This simple guide to what capitalism shows how the companies exploit uss, how govourments keep uss in check by saying terrorist - or patriot, how the whole system is designed to lure and trick uss into a never ending meal for the vampire - the profit.

http://www.prole.info/introduction/intro_0.html

Check it. Tell me if you agree or not and debate it. I can take intellectual critique and good arguments. Though try to keep your "Bloody commie get out of here" comments out of here. If you wan't to proove me wrong that will only enforce how stupid those who follow capitalism are (besides the capitalists them self who ofcourse get rich on capitalism)

I have a policy of avoiding getting into intellectual debates with anyone too lazy or stupid to proofread their posts.

sino-soviet · May 15, 2005, 02:56 AM // 02:56

You may be surprised to hear that some people are not native English speakers.

Lasher Dragon · May 15, 2005, 03:02 AM // 03:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by sino-soviet

You may be surprised to hear that some people are not native English speakers.

Yes, I am fully aware that English is not the most prevalent language on the face of the planet. This is a website IN ENGLISH however, and, at least IMO, if you want anyone to take your posts seriously - at the VERY least, do some basic spellchecking. This is the internet, it's free.

ManadartheHealer · May 15, 2005, 03:45 AM // 03:45

Here is basically what I believe. In the perfect world, Communism > Capitalism. Why? because communism was created to be perfect, capitalism was created for this crap world we live in. The crap world cannot handle communism, so therefore capitalism works better in the current world...

I also agree with a previous post that if Communism was created first, then all this "greed" and such would never have become "human nature". All the commercials, business leaders, etc. promote greed. In a communism (assuming that if it were first it would work better), there would be enough to go around, thus shattering the age-old system of the "haves and have nots".

I believe that in the current world, the best answer would be Socialism, but most countries that one may consider socialist are not really. When I say "Socialism", I am talking about mostly public ownership, and all basic needs are covered and provided for. But, as "incentive" to get all these lazy, greedy people to still work, there could still be money, but it would be limited to just buying extraneous things (like giant TVs and whatnot). Even there, I suppose there are still the "haves and have nots", but everyone is fed, clothed, and sheltered properly...

I do have to agree with some "die-hard" Marxists though that capitalist propaganda is bad. Perhaps even worse than Communist propaganda on the average. Why? Nobody points it out like they do (or did) Communist propaganda. And that makes it all the more worse...

In the end, the capitalist nations of the world will have to get more and more "Socialized" (lol?), otherwise they will risk a full-scale revolution, because the gap between the rich and the poor is growing...

Lasher Dragon · May 15, 2005, 03:54 AM // 03:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by ManadartheHealer

...otherwise they will risk a full-scale revolution, because the gap between the rich and the poor is growing...

Viva la Revolucion!!!

Spartan2 · May 15, 2005, 06:16 AM // 06:16

A little tid bit more I would like to add: I would be just as happy with Democracy as with Communism as long as the Democracy was founded on a strong Socialist base and then let loose into that crazy free-for-all laissez faire; if the minimum wage is set at a very reasonable amount with a percent increase per year equal to that of the inflation, a Social Security system set to give out benifits equal to that of what is payed in, and a set boundry to corporate business practices, unions, and a completely guarranteed set of rights, then a "perfect Democracy" could be attained as long as the Government stays in check by an active populace and maintains an isolationist standpoint on world conflicts besides that of keeping word with NATO and the UN. ..... but please continue your Communism v. Democracy; it is very entertaining.

Sekkira · May 15, 2005, 08:16 AM // 08:16

On top of that, there would be no incentives for an idealistic communist society to grow. Capitalism works because of the massive incentive to create something new and better for many things, you remove this and you have a society that stays where it is. Anyone should remember the dark ages? Well similar to that, but without all the wars and violence.

Dreamsmith · May 15, 2005, 05:41 PM // 17:41

The biggest problem with this issue is the same problem I see in most debates: the false dilemma. There's nothing wrong with either capitalism or socialism until you take them to such an extreme that they actually exclude the other.

We've seen people try and fail to set up pure communist states (ruining them in the process), and we've seen the horrors, impoverishment, and corruption caused by pure capitalism (in the 19th century, before we realized we need laws to prevent it). Experience has shown that both of these systems have a great deal going for them, and states that don't promote both to as large a degree as possible suffer for it. The best places to live in the world are not coincidentally those nations can be both reasonably described as capitalist and socialist. Non-centrally planned, free-market-friendly nations with strong social support structures. Places where people understand that the best society and government is both capitalist AND socialist.

It's only in nations where people try to fly on one of these wings while trying to saw off the other that the whole thing crashes, or at least flies erratically and dangerously while the people onboard all reach for their vomit-bags.

But as long as people view this as an exclusive either/or debate, it's a pointless debate, to the detriment of everyone involved. We can all spend all day on one side pointing out the failures of those who tried to go with the other side entirely. But in the end, we'd just end up looking as foolish as people trying to argue whether the plane would fly better with only a right wing or a left wing. It doesn't fly well either way, folks...

LouderthanSeth · May 15, 2005, 06:03 PM // 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sekkira

On top of that, there would be no incentives for an idealistic communist society to grow. Capitalism works because of the massive incentive to create something new and better for many things, you remove this and you have a society that stays where it is. Anyone should remember the dark ages? Well similar to that, but without all the wars and violence.

Best point made so far. Hands down.