Communist Education?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by JohnT
Iain Banks came up with a wonderfully appealing Communist society... [..] all work was automated, done by robots and servitors,

And you believe this was an effect, rather than a cause?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by joncha
hmm... I was wondering... does the CPA have an open membership? ...or do you put prospective members through some kind of trial period to weed out the police agents and agents provocatuers?

jon.

It has been whomever I invited to join, however, I never said that others couldn't invite people to join. I don't think Poly allows closed clubs, though. In any event, there's nothing we could do to stop anyone from slapping CPA on themselves.

Since this is, essentially, a joke party, there's not a lot of point in weeding out police. Don't get me wrong, we take our politics seriously, but hell, one should always beable to laugh at onesself. Humor is a very human thing, and communism is about creating a world in which we can be fully human.

So, if you want in, you're in. If not, you're not.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Agathon
The capitalist claim that there exists a single human nature independently of the kind of socio-political system people live in just amounts to special pleading.

What can I say, but that I disagree? "Capitalism" has been around for a few hundred years, so far as I can see. Yet my (admittedly rather dim) view of human nature is based on human history going back far beyond the industrial revolution.

Will human behavior change under a communist system? Yes, of course. But not the way communists hope, I think. People will still compete and try to get ahead. The rules of the game, however, will have changed, so that people must adapt to them. And adapt they will. The only hope you would have, I think, would be to somehow channel that competition towards things you think are good for all. A system based on honors, perhaps, as opposed to wealth? Dunno if that would work.

Anyway, I would really like to see a group of people (a large one) set up a "real" communist state somewhere, without the tyranny/oppression bit, and be left alone by everyone else, and see how they do... over a few generations (so obviously I'd be dead by the time the experiment can really be judged). But that hasn't happened yet, and the attempts thus far have not been encouraging. Therefore, I remain *extremely* skeptical about communism.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

[1] Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Private property existed long before that. Nobles owned their land. That's private property. The Duma was only instituted, btw, after the 1905 Russian Revolution, which was lead by the Socialists.[/q]

I meant getting rid of the communal farms - the government bought land from the nobles and sold it to the peasants at a low price.

That's a strange version of democracy, where the members of the organization have no say. But then, you think the Provisional Government was democratic too.

You really think the military should decide what it does? The military is supposed to defend the country and serve the people, not serve itself.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
The latter is highly likely.

It's still a fallacy to claim that current science is wrong because all previous science has been wrong.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
1) It's a fact that advertisers attempted and were largely successful and continue to be at "creating demand" for products via the mass media.

What's wrong there? They manage to convince people that the product being sold is worth the price. Who else should get to decide whether or not they buy something than the person buying it?

2) The special case of "cool" things is a case in which people are engaged in what economists call a race to the bottom. They spend vast amounts of money and have little prospect of getting what they want. That's just dumb.

So now people aren't allowed to be stupid?

[Ben Kenobi]

Look at Canada's health system - people complain about it, but it is one of the most efficient in the world.

If that's the case, I pity the world.

[Patroklos]

Efficient in everyone has access to it, not efficient in actually giving people quality of service. So I guess you believe in quantity over quality?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Arrian


What can I say, but that I disagree? "Capitalism" has been around for a few hundred years, so far as I can see. Yet my (admittedly rather dim) view of human nature is based on human history going back far beyond the industrial revolution.

Small human communities many times thrive and exist in systems in which the main mode of eocnomic activity if gift giving- one person gives a gift, expecting others to give one as well- or think of the importance of courtesy in so many societies- you let any stranger into your house, feed them and aid them, in the expectation that when you are in need, the saem will be done for you. Now, if there was someone in the US who just let anyone into thier house and helped them for a few days, we would label them as so generous- but as is clear, the reason this is done in other societies is not a sense of generosity, but one of shared commitments one has to everyone else that must be honored.

Will human behavior change under a communist system? Yes, of course. But not the way communists hope, I think. People will still compete and try to get ahead. The rules of the game, however, will have changed, so that people must adapt to them. And adapt they will. The only hope you would have, I think, would be to somehow channel that competition towards things you think are good for all. A system based on honors, perhaps, as opposed to wealth? Dunno if that would work.

A communist system does not call for a change in human behavior- after all, the proleteriat revolution comes form the greed of the working classes, wantiong a slice of the pie the system denies them-that is a selfish motive. If the rules change, it will be becuase the system of rules changed. Are we more or less greedy today than people in the Mercantalist system? and the feudal system? I always go back to slavery- we view slavery as horrible and immoral, even though it was an ancient practice going back to the dawn of hisotry, defended by philosophers for millenia. Did human nature change? no. But the economic systems did.

Anyway, I would really like to see a group of people (a large one) set up a "real" communist state somewhere, without the tyranny/oppression bit, and be left alone by everyone else, and see how they do... over a few generations (so obviously I'd be dead by the time the experiment can really be judged). But that hasn't happened yet, and the attempts thus far have not been encouraging. Therefore, I remain *extremely* skeptical about communism.

-Arrian

As said before, all attempts up to know have been politically driven ones, in which some vanguard thought it could take reign of history and move the system along.

[Arrian]

Small human communities many times thrive and exist in systems in which the main mode of eocnomic activity if gift giving- one person gives a gift, expecting others to give one as well- or think of the importance of courtesy in so many societies- you let any stranger into your house, feed them and aid them, in the expectation that when you are in need, the saem will be done for you.

I think it's difficult to scale something like this up to a humanity-wide system. No necessarily impossible, but difficult. Humanity seems to cling to its tribal tendencies (what is Nationalism after all? Tribalism writ large?). It's not a reason to say "communism won't work" but it is a hurdle for communism to get over, wouldn't you say?

Anyway, I'm tired of talking about communism. It's 4pm on Friday. It's been fun.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


Small human communities many times thrive and exist in systems in which the main mode of eocnomic activity if gift giving- one person gives a gift, expecting others to give one as well- or think of the importance of courtesy in so many societies- you let any stranger into your house, feed them and aid them, in the expectation that when you are in need, the saem will be done for you. Now, if there was someone in the US who just let anyone into thier house and helped them for a few days, we would label them as so generous- but as is clear, the reason this is done in other societies is not a sense of generosity, but one of shared commitments one has to everyone else that must be honored.

Not so. The gift of hospitality moreso reflects the travel arrangements and need for civility in otherwise hostile environs. Historically, dignitaries/nobels etc. when traveling were under special protection to be shown hospitality else they be insulted and start war. As most of our accustomed coutesies and manners derive from a guarded sense of fair play. It doesn't necessarily derive from a Godlen Rule mentality but moreover from a sense of fear and self preservation.

[QUOTE]
A communist system does not call for a change in human behavior- after all, the proleteriat revolution comes form the greed of the working classes, wantiong a slice of the pie the system denies them-that is a selfish motive. If the rules change, it will be becuase the system of rules changed. Are we more or less greedy today than people in the Mercantalist system? and the feudal system? I always go back to slavery- we view slavery as horrible and immoral, even though it was an ancient practice going back to the dawn of hisotry, defended by philosophers for millenia. Did human nature change? no. But the economic systems did.
[\QUOTE]

So your saying greed and communism can co-exist in a new set of economic systems?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who should I believe: you or a former CIA analyist?

Um... I'd definetly believe someone who was IN THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! Duh!

Anyway, the joke was funny. Commies need to get a sense of humor and take a chill pill. Now this thread is over. You can thank me later

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GePap
As said before, all attempts up to know have been politically driven ones, in which some vanguard thought it could take reign of history and move the system along.

History doesn't just happen. History is made by actors, not watchers. If we sit around and wait to be saved, we will never be saved. Salvation, revolution, etc. are all conscious choices that must be made and acted upon in order to happen. When Marx wrote that socialism was inevitable, he meant because he could not believe the working class would put up with the conditions under which they existed for long.

Lenin did not argue that a vanguard should substitute itself as the engine of history. He argued that 1) on its own, the working class will not make the leap from trade union conscioussness to revolutionary class consciousness, thus a group of professional revolutionaries was needed to raise that consciousness in the working class, 2) that the conditions in Tsarist Russia necessitated that such a revolutionaries must be tightly organized, semi-underground, and democratically-centralized.

These points have been misunderstood by just about everyone from the begining, as well as made into fetishes. Only a few years later (1905), Lenin had to argue against his party who was quoting him back at himself, that the conditions in Russia had changed, and that they had to adapt to new circumstances, i.e., a revolution.

Fourteen years later, Lenin had to write another book arguing against his early arguements again, because comrades in the West, who were not facing Tsarism, were copying his moves, not his methodology. Since Lenin's death, his words have become Mosiac law for the communist movement: Stalinist, Trotskyist, and Maoist alike. They all, however, miss the context and method, which is the essential kernal.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
So your saying greed and communism can co-exist in a new set of economic systems?

If by greed you mean self-interest, yes. Greed is an extreme form of self-interest, and can often be detrimental to one's actual interests. For example, the Hopi Indians used to consider peope who had accumulated too much wealth to be evil spirits, and they sent them away. So in this case, greed causes you to be exiled from your home, and to likely die in the wilderness.

A theoretical example of how self-interest works in a communal system. You all share in the products of your work together. This means, if you do more work, you get more products, which means you have more for everyone, including yourself. The counter, of course, is that by doing no work, you can still get something because everyone else will be doing something. But how willing do you think they will be to share with shirkers? In a democratic system, people won't put up with shirkers for long. Plus here are other methods of attitude adjustment: shunning, ridicule, exile, stocks (protected from the elements, we're not cruel), etc. Or maybe we could just find the shirker different work that suited them better.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Not so. The gift of hospitality moreso reflects the travel arrangements and need for civility in otherwise hostile environs. Historically, dignitaries/nobels etc. when traveling were under special protection to be shown hospitality else they be insulted and start war. As most of our accustomed coutesies and manners derive from a guarded sense of fair play. It doesn't necessarily derive from a Godlen Rule mentality but moreover from a sense of fear and self preservation.

Somethign like this does not get started because of "kings", and such a system existed prior to the large political systems you need for anyone even to be called a king. So I have no idea were you pulled out the notion that this was becuase a king might start a war.

So your saying greed and communism can co-exist in a new set of economic systems?

Greed is different from self-interest. Greed is unhealthy self-interest, a sin after all, like gluttony. Self-interest is doing this becuase they benefit you, and yes, there is self-interest in communism, not just rampant altruism.