Define communism for dum 'ol Lancer

[Velociryx]

That's not quite true. Some bourgeois can be "saved" and some can't. Such a thing must be judged on an individual basis.

However, the bourgeois class as a whole will always look for its interests first and foremost, which are opposite to the proletariat's. This is why this class should not be in power anymore, t least if you're a supporter of the proletariat's interests.

This seems reasonable (even where it glosses over the attrocities committed against the ones who "can't be saved" (whomever makes that determination), but for two things, which are closely related to one another.
IF it can be said that the current ruling class will look to its own interests first and foremost, then why is it assumed that once the proletariat rises to power, they will magically not do so (not look to their own interests first), but rather, usher in the long-awaited utopia, where there is plenty, and perfect equality for all?

What special skills does this group posess that makes this a foregone conclusion, just as it is offered as a foregone conclusion that the current dictators will automatically NOT be capable of getting us to the utopic state?

Without a solid answer to these questions, it would appear that we're simply swapping one master for another, and while this might be empowering for the minority who feel they have been abused by the system, it is not a recipie for utopia. It DOES make a good soundbyte to incite rebellion, but sadly, that does not make it true.

-=Vel=-

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sandman


And the new world was explored by expeditions funded by the governments of the time, not 'wealthy nobles'.

Not true in North America- private companies/individuals did do some of the exploring, trading and colonizing.

For instance:

" The company was designated as "The Treasurer and Company of Adventurers and Planters of the City of London for the First Colony of Virginia". The title distinguishes between two types of subscribers or sponsors: "Adventurers" and "Planters". "Adventurers" was the word used for the stockholders, who generally remained in England, and very rarely ventured their persons in the colony in Virginia. They bought shares in the company and, to a greater or lesser degree, attended the meetings of the Court of the Virginia Company in London. "Planters" referred to the people who actually went to Virginia to set up settlements, and for this they received a share in stock. "

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/lordcornell/iwhr/va/via.htm

See also the London Company, the Plymouth Company and the Massachusetts Bay Company.

[chequita guevara]

To be fair, though, mb, Virgina's coast had already been explored. This was a colony.

However, Henry Hudson's expeditions were privately financed.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Velociryx
IF it can be said that the current ruling class will look to its own interests first and foremost, then why is it assumed that once the proletariat rises to power, they will magically not do so (not look to their own interests first), but rather, usher in the long-awaited utopia, where there is plenty, and perfect equality for all?

Che will fill you on that better than I, if he still reads this thread. I think that the dictatorship of the proletariat is forced to have a non-capitalist system, simply because the bulk of society (being proles) isn't oppressed anymore. Capitalism, as a system based on economic oppression, has to go.
In the new economic paradigm (socialism), it's not in the interests of the proletariat to economically oppress the other class. At least not in the long run. This is why the dictatorship of the proletariat has no reason to further the division between two classes.

Also, remember that I do not support the dictatorship of the proletariat. So my explanation of the concept might very well be unconvincing, and it's possible that there are some false things (I have tried to write what I'm sure about, however).

Again, Che will be better than me to explain the concept.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
To be fair, though, mb, Virgina's coast had already been explored. This was a colony.

However, Henry Hudson's expeditions were privately financed.

Explored by whom ?


Anyone who knows the workings of the Tudor monarchy (especially in Elizabeth's reign) will know how keen the Crown was for private individuals and companies to purchase permission from the Crown to explore, trade colonize and also act as informal navy.

For instance: the Levant Company, the Muscovy Company, the East India Company and so on. It was cheaper, brought in revenue for the Crown and allowed plausible deniability for criminal acts.


Not quite like United Fruit in Guatemala, but not far off.

[Velociryx]

We've had oil rigs for years... but they've not turned into self-sufficient communities.

This should be obvious, but if not, I'll state it. Oil rigs are designed for a specific economic purpose...that being, getting oil from beneath the waves, and into our cars. As such, there has never been an oil rig DESIGNED to be a self-sufficient operation.
And the new world was explored by expeditions funded by the governments of the time, not 'wealthy nobles'.
During the era in which the new world was discoverd, the european nations that did the greater bulk OF that exploration were....Monarchies. Meaning that they were ruled by....wealthy nobles.

Wealthy nobles (kings and queens) funded the expeditions to the new world, along with private companies of trade (which were generally themselves financed by wealthy nobles, amounting to the same thing)

As for the moon and Mars, the land is sterile basalt, the housing would be amongst the most expensive ever created, and the self-sufficiency (and low population) surely damages the idea that these places would help contribute to the capitalist economy. They'd probably have mostly planned economies for the first few decades, at least, and probably beyond that.

None of these are reasons not to go...only challenges to be overcome upon arriving (well, actually, before leaving, since, sans atmosphere, doing it on the fly would be somewhat daunting). The drive for more land and resources will make it happen. Sooner or later, we'll get there. It's just a question of when. The technology exists, and baby steps (unmanned probes) are currently being taken.

You're thinking like a civ player. Food supplies are already perfectly adequate, as is everything else. People are simply less interested in having children.

I don't share your optimism that technological progress will always keep pace with population growth. There are plenty of civilizations which died out due to exhausting their resources.

Krazyhorse also pointed out a few months ago that if the population of America continued to grow at its present rate, in 40,000 years, the mass of Americans would exceed the mass of the the universe.

I've not played Civ in quite some time. Actually, I'm thinking like the Earth isn't the only sandbox we'll ever be playing in. America's growth rate is only 0.92%. I have no information on the mass of the universe, but something tells me that, even given 40k years of time, that kind of growth rate would be insufficient to exceed the mass of the universe. Interesting notion tho.

Che will fill you on that better than I, if he still reads this thread. I think that the dictatorship of the proletariat is forced to have a non-capitalist system, simply because the bulk of society (being proles) isn't oppressed anymore. Capitalism, as a system based on economic oppression, has to go.

False premise. It is a system based on economic oppression as defined by Marx. The majority of people currently living under said economic system disagree (again, which is why communists hold...what? 1% or less of the seats of power IN industrialized nations, even though all the proles can vote...apparently their outrage, even after more than a century, is barely a blip).

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Again, Che will be better than me to explain the concept.

Nah, you basically got it.

The proletariat has no material interest in exploiting anyone, and thus no material interest in opressing anyone. Every previous ruling class, being a minority and relying on others to create their wealth and do their work, needed to opress the lower classes. The proletariat, being the class that does the work and creates the wealth, has no reason to keep itself down. To paraphrase Marx, the working class can only emancipate itself by emancipating all of humanity.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Explored by whom ?

The French, under Verrazano. IIRC, that was financed by the French crown.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
1) Capitalism must reach a certain state which includes particular critical masses before a communist society can replace it. The working class (not peasants) must reach a critical mass and form a cohesive bond. The productive powers of capitalism (not feudalism) must peak.

Then you're essentially talking evolution (see above) which only ONE PERSON in a dozen or so threads has even mentioned, and that one person wasn't you. Your plan calls for a REVOLUTIONARY approach, whether the above condition is met or not. It is not a precondition you have ever seemed to care about until just this moment (ie - you've never mentioned it as a part of your planning, except now, in an attempt to show my lack of understanding).

I've mentioned it. I've been trying to tell you that for awhile now, but you are too caught up in your own little world.

More importantly it's part of Marxist theory which you claim to be fully versed in. You obviously need to try harder to understand what we are saying.

4) The period after the revolution is not utopia. It's the period where things are worked out, and where the working class learns what it needs to know to live in a utopia.

No kidding! The thing Kid needs to acknowledge is "nor will the period AFTER the "sorting things out" be a utopia. Believe me...I've NEVER said anything (aside from sarcasm) about your ideology leading to a utopia of the blissful sort.

So what? CAPITALISM ISN'T UTOPIA! No one is talking about utopia, except you when you use the word sarcastically.

[Velociryx]

I've mentioned it. I've been trying to tell you that for awhile now, but you are too caught up in your own little world.

More importantly it's part of Marxist theory which you claim to be fully versed in. You obviously need to try harder to understand what we are saying.

I understand this: Since no one here subscribes fully to Marxist theory (everybody has their own spin on it, leaving out parts, modifying parts, etc), then it is important to spell out and specify WHAT parts you mean to enact. Having reviewed this thread, I find no mention by you of the above. Care to try again?

Kidicious: 4) The period after the revolution is not utopia. It's the period where things are worked out, and where the working class learns what it needs to know to live in a utopia.

Kidicious Redeux: No one is talking about utopia.

Really? Then I'm all the more amused, cos it sure looks like you are!

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

oh...and please quote me where I've EVER described capitalism as utopia.

Put that on your list of things to look for, right next to those quotes about me being a slavemaster bent on exploiting my fellow man, 'k?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I've mentioned it. I've been trying to tell you that for awhile now, but you are too caught up in your own little world.

More importantly it's part of Marxist theory which you claim to be fully versed in. You obviously need to try harder to understand what we are saying.

I understand this: Since no one here subscribes fully to Marxist theory (everybody has their own spin on it, leaving out parts, modifying parts, etc), then it is important to spell out and specify WHAT parts you mean to enact. Having reviewed this thread, I find no mention by you of the above. Care to try again?


The working class is not like the peasant class. The peasant class does not have the cohesion that the working class does, and are not capable of revolution. Neither do the have a cohesive bond with the working class.

Page 10

From source,

The working class is unlike any other exploited class in history. We have seen how the three-sided class struggle within slave society necessarily led to the "common ruin of the contending classes". We have seen how the feudal peasantry were for hundreds of years incapable of formulating a coherent revolutionary alternative to the system that exploited them.

From me,

So feudal societies are not ready for communism. They must completely go through the stage of capitalism.

Marx predicted that capitalism will progress until a certain point has been reached, and that communism was not possible before that point. Communism can not occur before the process of capitalism is complete, just like the other stages of development could not occur before the stages before it were complete.

Kidicious: 4) The period after the revolution is not utopia. It's the period where things are worked out, and where the working class learns what it needs to know to live in a utopia.

Kidicious Redeux: No one is talking about utopia.

Really? Then I'm all the more amused, cos it sure looks like you are!

Only in response to your constant sarcastic remarks about "ushering" in utopia.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
False premise. It is a system based on economic oppression as defined by Marx. The majority of people currently living under said economic system disagree (again, which is why communists hold...what? 1% or less of the seats of power IN industrialized nations, even though all the proles can vote...apparently their outrage, even after more than a century, is barely a blip).

In a time of crisis those numbers change quickly. Wages don't fall very quick, but since the rate of profit does there is a big increase in unemployment. The prediction that the rate of profit would continually decline turned out to be false. The capitalists have found ways to keep the rate of profit up, but in a time of crisis the rate of profit still falls.

[Velociryx]

Nice try, Kid...you showed me where you wrote about what marx predicted, but in no way, made that a part of your plan (which is revolutionary, rather than evolutionary).

Further, your core argument is based around a series of false premesis designed by marx to hang together to form a cohesive internal logic, but which has not been borne out in reality in any of the various attempts to model a society around those core concepts.

I contend that the reason this is so is because they are both false and faulty. Nothing you, or any other member of team red has shown me to date has done the least thing to change my mind.

Nothing you, or any member of the communist party has been able to do in more than a century of trying has been able to attract the attention of the mainstream, as it relates to political power. You will say (parroting Marx, of course) that this is because the current dictatorship is secretly robbing the power of the poor downtrodden masses, blah, blah, blah, and you MUST tell yourselves this, because the only other explanation is that you're just plain...wrong. And obviously, that's not up for debate. So the fairy tale continues.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Nice try, Kid...you showed me where you wrote about what marx predicted, but in no way, made that a part of your plan (which is revolutionary, rather than evolutionary).

Where did I say that it wasn't "part of my plan." If I'm a Marxist that is part of "my plan" unless I state otherwise. And I think I've been clear that I do believe in that part of the theory. Why don't you just debate it, instead of weaseling out?

Further, your core argument is based around a series of false premesis designed by marx to hang together to form a cohesive internal logic, but which has not been borne out in reality in any of the various attempts to model a society around those core concepts.

Anyone can just say that. If you want to debate you have to state the premises that you believe to be false, and the predictions that he made that have turned out false.

I contend that the reason this is so is because they are both false and faulty. Nothing you, or any other member of team red has shown me to date has done the least thing to change my mind.
concepts.

We aren't necessarily trying to change your mind. We're just trying to get you to put up a decent debate, because we like to debate.