Communism

[ThetaOrionis01]

Where's the exploitation in capitalism?

 

Everywhere.

 

Capitalism operates on the principle of supply and demand, and is driven by profit. Each of these aspects is an open invitation for exploitation.

 

Artificial demand is created by advertising and media campaigns - have a look around yourself. Advertising aimed at exploiting human weaknesses, using every trick in the psychological handbook. Guilt, desire, competition - all these are use to sell people goods they don't need, but are being brainwashed into thinking they must have.

In-built obsolescence and in-built lifespans of goods are another such way in which the capitalist philosophy exploits people. It is not in the interest of any manufacturer to build a product with a long lifespan and reliability - because that way their target markets would soon be saturated.

 

Supplies can be artificially restricted to drive up the price - what is that if not exploitation?

 

And finally, profit. Maximise your income, and minimise your manufacturing costs. How do you minimise costs? By exploiting your workers. By paying them the lowest amount you can get away with, by having the lowest health and safety standards you can get away with. By having the lowest environmental protection procedures you can get away with.

 

Exploitation is part and parcel of capitalism - not just in theory, but also in practice.

[CrazyGilbert]

brainwash? most people now have come to ignore all of the brainwashing advertisments that they come acrosss all day everyday. I could probably say that no commercial has ever wanted me to buy that item. It would probably make me not want to 'buy' or use it. But of course this is my own opinion of the matter.

[Malchik]

An ideology that envisages a society in which people co-operate willingly cannot be looked upon as evil and calling it so because it is impractical is a nonsense. Use the correct words, please.

 

We have no idea what society will be like in the future. Although I doubt if things will ever change to the point where communism is practical I certainly don't know it. And what is more, neither does anyone else. Maybe its time will come.

[ThetaOrionis01]

brainwash? most people now have come to ignore all of the brainwashing advertisments that they come acrosss all day everyday. I could probably say that no commercial has ever wanted me to buy that item. It would probably make me not want to 'buy' or use it. But of course this is my own opinion of the matter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You may claim that you are not influenced by advertising - however, product promotion is far subtler than just commercials and there is a lot more to it, ranging from the way an item is displayed, packaged and priced to the way shops are laid out. The psychology of advertising is really quite interesting.

 

And as for your claim that people ignore advertisements.... I think the marketing industry would disagree. Consumerism is rampant, and a prime example of capitalist exploitation of the markets it has created.

 

However, this has little to do with communism except to refute the claim that capitalism is not exploitative.

[thranduill]

:( The sad thing is that there's a darn lot of 'stupid' ones in this world.

Not that listening to FOX is a bad idea. It isnt.

 

 

There isn't. I would support you if you had a plan that actually works. So long as we have an 'us and them' philosophy it won't work.

 

And responding to thranduill-

 

.... Did you not realize that evolution is survival of the fittest- that while it works on individual people, it works on communities, races, species, animal kingdoms, and life as a whole?

 

-

 

I am stronger. I fight you, you die. I win.- this is brute strength.

 

I am weaker, but can use my ingenuity to kill you. I win.-this is cleverness

 

I am the same strength as you, but other attributes allows me to win. –this is other stuff

 

Change the ‘I’ and the ‘you’ in each to “my tribe” and “your tribe” or state, or country. Then, change it to species. Then change ‘I’ to ‘life’ and ‘You’ to ‘other forces’ and you get the same thing. This is how it works. The I and You can be switched to fit the situation.

 

For what concerns a plan that actually works it is up to all of us to make it, or must we wait for somebody to make a plan for us?

I see that in the three examples you made about evolution you win all the three times and do not give to me a single chance of victory; I get always killed.

I understand from it that you consider yourself stronger, very clever and with the right attributes to win all the time. The only problem is that I dont see why you should fight and kill me, if not the fact that we are going back to the story of the wolf and the deer:but if you like to be a wolf I am sorry to say that I am not a deer

and I see a lot of better ways of living than killing all the time other people for

"evolution": I repeat, as nobody here seems to answer to the real question that

we have yet seen how the story of the better races has ended:

My friend, I am sorry to say that it works like that for you and not for me.

And to answer to Draighox first he does not answer to my question about the

exploitation and ask me about China and Russia that are now free market countries,so capitalistic and not communist.

It was enough reading all the post when I speak about China "being communist

as name and fascist as fact" to have the answer to the question he has posed.

The real problem is that we NEVER had any REAL communist country and the few people who tried had to give to eat to people starving of famine and were mainly

boycotted by the big superpowers.

[Zmid]

First, a reply to the idea that's been said far too many times to quote individually:

 

An idea that fails to account for basic human nature is fundamentally flawed. And when that failure means that it will inevitably cause massive harm if tried in the real world, that idea is evil. Not quite as evil as the ones who use it in reality, but still not a good idea.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, sorry, can't agree with that. Short-sighted and very much on the naive side? Yes. Evil? No.

 

Secondly, does this show a problem with this idea, or a problem with human nature? I'd say the latter.

 

And responding to thranduill-

 

.... Did you not realize that evolution is survival of the fittest- that while it works on individual people, it works on communities, races, species, animal kingdoms, and life as a whole?

 

-

 

I am stronger. I fight you, you die. I win.- this is brute strength.

 

I am weaker, but can use my ingenuity to kill you. I win.-this is cleverness

 

I am the same strength as you, but other attributes allows me to win. –this is other stuff

 

Change the ‘I’ and the ‘you’ in each to “my tribe” and “your tribe” or state, or country. Then, change it to species. Then change ‘I’ to ‘life’ and ‘You’ to ‘other forces’ and you get the same thing. This is how it works. The I and You can be switched to fit the situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And communism is simply saying that everyone is 'I', and therefore everyone pools their resources to combat 'you', whether that 'you' is another country or something else entirely.

 

 

I was talking about theory, because this thead is about communism in theory, IMO. You want to talk about practise? OK. Look at Russia, look at China, look at Chile.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

All three were dictatorships based on a pseudo-communism that only really bears a very slight passing resemblance to true communist ideals. The USSR in the period after Stalin died until when it dissolved was the closest to a true communism, but, even then, it was a form of communism corrupted by the legacy of Stalin.

 

 

Where's the exploitation in capitalism?

 

Everywhere.

 

Capitalism operates on the principle of supply and demand, and is driven by profit. Each of these aspects is an open invitation for exploitation.

 

Artificial demand is created by advertising and media campaigns - have a look around yourself. Advertising aimed at exploiting human weaknesses, using every trick in the psychological handbook. Guilt, desire, competition - all these are use to sell people goods they don't need, but are being brainwashed into thinking they must have.

In-built obsolescence and in-built lifespans of goods are another such way in which the capitalist philosophy exploits people. It is not in the interest of any manufacturer to build a product with a long lifespan and reliability - because that way their target markets would soon be saturated.

 

Supplies can be artificially restricted to drive up the price - what is that if not exploitation?

 

And finally, profit. Maximise your income, and minimise your manufacturing costs. How do you minimise costs? By exploiting your workers. By paying them the lowest amount you can get away with, by having the lowest health and safety standards you can get away with. By having the lowest environmental protection procedures you can get away with.

 

Exploitation is part and parcel of capitalism - not just in theory, but also in practice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not only that, in a capitalist society, what happens if you cannot work? One of two things:

 

1) If the reason you cannot work is recognised by the state as being legitimate, you get benefit, but, fairly often, this benefit is only barely enough to survive on, and you struggle to live. If you're lucky, you may get more than one type of benefit, and you can therefore afford to live almost comfortably.

 

2) If the reason you cannot work is not recognised as being legitimate, you might still get benefit for a certain period. After that, you either live out of other people's dustbins or you starve.

 

 

Of course, if a country's government actually ruthlessly applied the principles of capitalism, even the above wouldn't happen. In that case, if you cannot work, no matter what the reason, you're useless to the capitalist state, so you get nothing.

 

What would happen in an ideal communist country? You'd still get your house. You'd still get your food. In fact, pretty much nothing would change. Of course, human nature being what it is, this would most probably cause others to not work as well, but this is a problem with human nature, not really a problem with communism per se.

[Peregrine]

Of course, calling something a good idea is not supporting it.

I'm glad we agree.

 

I'm glad you missed the whole point of that. Calling communism a good idea is supporting it. Not as much as starting a communist revolution of your own, but it's still support.

 

I recognise its fatal flaws, but I don't hate it.

 

If an ideology responsible for more damage than the nazis doesn't get your hatred, what does?

 

=======================

 

No, sorry, can't agree with that. Short-sighted and very much on the naive side? Yes. Evil? No.

 

It's evil because attempting to put it into place will inevitably cause massive harm. Now that we know the consequences, it can safely be judged evil. Anyone ignoring history and claiming that communism works and is a good idea is evil.

Secondly, does this show a problem with this idea, or a problem with human nature? I'd say the latter.

 

The idea. Human nature is as it has been for thousands of years, for all of recorded history. This is just the way we are and always will be, and you just have to deal with that.

 

The USSR in the period after Stalin died until when it dissolved was the closest to a true communism, but, even then, it was a form of communism corrupted by the legacy of Stalin.

 

A form of true communism that collapsed completely, leaving a ruined economy.

 

2) If the reason you cannot work is not recognised as being legitimate, you might still get benefit for a certain period. After that, you either live out of other people's dustbins or you starve.

 

Why should it be any different? If you're too lazy to work, why should someone else do it for you?

 

What would happen in an ideal communist country? You'd still get your house. You'd still get your food. In fact, pretty much nothing would change

 

Or more likely, you'd get no house and no food, because your country's economy has collapsed and your share of the wealth won't even buy dirt to eat.

 

Of course, human nature being what it is, this would most probably cause others to not work as well, but this is a problem with human nature, not really a problem with communism per se.

 

For what seems like the millionth time, failing to account for basic human nature is a huge flaw. Your ideas are nothing but hopeless idealism, they haven't worked and they never will. Human nature isn't a problem, it's just the way things are.

[Darnoc]

Human nature isn't a problem, it's just the way things are.

 

I tend to disagree with you here, Peregrine. I agree that communism does not work because of human nature and is therefore flawed, but I don't agree that the problem is the system. If we have a system which would work perfectly, if human nature would be different, why not put our efforts into changing that very nature which stands in the way of this system? Is the human nature something holy and untouchable? No, it is not. Humans are flawed beings. Therefore it should be our goal to change humans into better beings, more perfect beings. If I may be so bold, I think, before we go about changing anything else in this world, we should try to change ourselves first. Then we can try to change other things, not before.

 

Alas, humans tend to find flaws everywhere else and not in themselves. This is a completly wrong attitude. A lot of problems have their source in our flawed nature. Recognizing the flawed nature of humans (and with this our personal flawed nature) is the first step in correcting this flawed nature. The next step is to understand how this flawed nature works. I think this should be the main goal of psychology and on a larger scale of sociology. After understanding our flawed nature, we can begin to find ways in order to improve this flawed nature.

 

The problem with this is the completly wrong attitude of our whole society, of all societies. There never was any society which was able to undertake this great project of changing human nature, because all societies rely on natural sciences and not on the humanities. The first thing to change is our attitude towards humanities. Psychology, Sociology and analytical history should become the most important sciences, not physics, biology or chemistry. Before trying to understand and change our world, we must first understand and change ourselves.

 

Understand that I don't have any exact ideas how to change human nature. I am only saying that I think we should seriously begin to think about it. For millenias we have tried to find solutions for our problems and tried to find those solutions somewhere else, in the world surrounding us. We should definitly start to find solutions in ourselves.

[thranduill]

Human nature isn't a problem, it's just the way things are.

 

 

 

The problem with this is the completly wrong attitude of our whole society, of all societies. There never was any society which was able to undertake this great project of changing human nature, because all societies rely on natural sciences and not on the humanities. The first thing to change is our attitude towards humanities. Psychology, Sociology and analytical history should become the most important sciences, not physics, biology or chemistry. Before trying to understand and change our world, we must first understand and change ourselves.

 

Understand that I don't have any exact ideas how to change human nature. I am only saying that I think we should seriously begin to think about it. For millenias we have tried to find solutions for our problems and tried to find those solutions somewhere else, in the world surrounding us. We should definitly start to find solutions in ourselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[/quote

 

I think you are speaking about the real problem, the changement we must operate on ourselves, before any changement of the outside world.

To me it seems very clear that I will change the world according to what I am

"inside".

We may discuss how to change our "nature", but I see as a matter of fact that the first thing to do is to " find solutions in ourselves",

And I totally agree that humans tend to find flaws everywhere else and not in themselves.

[draighox]

To Theta Orionis

 

I was talking about capitalism in theory. There is no exploitation defined there. Unlike communism, where exploitation can be easily seen even in theory, as I said two times already, I think.

 

To everyone

 

If we talk about practice, then yes, there is exploitation in capitalism, when we use it practicaly. But what happens every time someone tries to use communism practicaly? Millions of killed people and a ruined country.

 

So in conclusion, communism is far more evil than capitalism in theory and in practise.

 

The problem with this is the completly wrong attitude of our whole society, of all societies. There never was any society which was able to undertake this great project of changing human nature, because all societies rely on natural sciences and not on the humanities. The first thing to change is our attitude towards humanities. Psychology, Sociology and analytical history should become the most important sciences, not physics, biology or chemistry. Before trying to understand and change our world, we must first understand and change ourselves.

Mathematics, informatics, physics, biology and chemistry (I hate chemistry) are the most important sciences, because they prevent famine, grant us the conveniences we use today and give us medicine, which saves lifes of millions of people.