What Political Persuasion Are You?

[Alanador]

I have not studied Communism enough on my own to say that my knowledge of it was not filtered by the information I was fed at school, which was still during the cold war. Although, I did have a social studies teacher, in my 10th year, say that "...communism is the ideal form of government, it just hasn't been done right" in his opinon. The rest of his comment was what made me remember his comments to this day. He said, "Thirty years ago I could have been forced out of teaching for saying this, at the very least...". His opinon of course. As for Mario utilizing students, he WAS a student! So he was just an organizer of his peers. He was only 21 years old at the time of that speech, just a boy really...

 

There is a revolution building, a revolution of thought. More and more people are paying attention to what is happening all around the world thanks to the internet and discussions like this. People are picking sides and talking, and learning, sometimes switching sides...and that's natural. Sure there are some that are not open to real dialog...but we can't let that minority stop us from engaging each other. There should be no party lines, they allow us to be divided, and conquered. We will probably not see the structure of politics removed any time soon...but we can look and focus beyond what it is now. We even need to look beyond the ideology of this subject, beyond communism, and capitalism, and democracy, to the human element that makes any part of any of these equations in any way applicable to any existance on this planet. It may take time, but it will never happen if we don't persist.

[Peregrine]

Center on average, but mostly because my non-center positions tend to cancel out overall. I'd say I'm closest to libertarian, but consider many of them to be absolute morons who take it way too far to the extreme. In general, I'm liberal on social issue (do whatever you want, as long as you don't bother me with it), conservative on financial/governenment size/power issues (cut the taxes and get rid of some of these useless agencies and laws), conservative on military/foriegn policy (we need a strong military and should protect our interests if needed), and very conservative on personal freedoms (the constitution says "shall not be infringed", not "shall not be infringed unless it conflicts with our political agenda).

 

So I tend to hate both parties in the US. There's no real difference, both are big-government financial liberals , the only difference is the democrats want to expand the government's size and budget to enfore social equality, while the republicans want to do it to enforce morality.

 

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

 

And on the idea of communism... it's a completely flawed and hopelessly idealistic system. Anyone attempting to create a communist government in the real world is either a moron, evil, or both. This is true for two reasons:

 

1) It contradicts human nature. Communism makes the assumption that everyone in the system is perfectly selfless and devoted entirely to the greater good. But in reality, people are selfish. There will always be people who try to exploit the system and act selfishly, so the entire system collapses. Instead of complete equality, you have a system dominated by those selfish enough to take advantage of everyone else's contributions. Just look at real-world communist governments, all of them ended up with a vast majority of poor people, dominated by a wealthy and powerful elite and a powerful government.

 

2) It creates equality by bringing everyone down to the lowest level. People aren't equal. For example, I am far more intelligent than most people. And I'm taking advantage of that by getting an engineering degree at a good university, then moving on to a high-paying job where I will enjoy all the benefits of that money. But in a communist system, why would I bother? Why would I spend several years of my life to get that degree, then my entire adult life with a difficult and demanding job, when I could take any random easy job and get the same benefits? Or even not work at all, since the basic principle of communism is that everyone is given complete equality?

 

So in the end, I'm completely equal with everyone else. But in this hypothetical communist world, I don't make the revolutionary advance in my field that I will in the real world. So an entire industry and billions of dollars in income is lost. It doesn't go to my bank account, it doesn't get distributed among the poor and disadvantaged, it just never exists.

[Marxist ßastard]

It contradicts human nature... people are selfish.

 

It contradicts what human nature you've seen, completely immersed in an atmosphere of mass consumerism. This charachteristic is inspired not by human nature, but by the hand of the dominating charachter in society.

 

Just look at real-world communist governments

 

...Such as?

[Peregrine]

It contradicts human nature... people are selfish.

 

It contradicts what human nature you've seen, completely immersed in an atmosphere of mass consumerism. This charachteristic is inspired not by human nature, but by the hand of the dominating charachter in society.

 

This is how human society has been for as long as we have recorded history. There are always selfish people who will take advantage of others when they can. Expecting this to ever change (without unrealistic scifi technology) is hopelessly idealistic.

 

Even if it isn't an absolute part of the human brain (and evolution suggests it is... the selfish are the ones who survive in survival of the fittest), human society has far too much inertia to change it. Anyone attempting to change it will just become a minor footnote in history as someone more ruthless exploits them.

 

Just look at real-world communist governments

 

...Such as?

 

China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, any of those sound familar? And don't say they aren't this mythical "true communist system", those countries are the inevitable result of communism in the real world. Even if your hypothetical communist system is created with the purest of intentions, it will quickly become just like those countries.

[Marxist ßastard]

...Human society has far too much inertia to [lessen greed]...

 

[A degenerated workers' state is] the inevitable result of communism in the real world.

 

It is true that we can't change this pattern with a day's worth of work, and a few snappy red hats. That is why a glorious Communist revolt is doomed to failure. If I recall correctly, this phenomenon -- in which even if a nation is completely victorious against the enemy (here, the capitalist features of their own land) in a military sense, they may still lose a war due to the assimilation of their weaker, less developed culture into the enemy's overpowering one -- was commented on quite a bit by Marx, who suggested Communism as the end result of a series of achievements taking place over the course of generations.

 

However, does that mean that a true Communist society -- IE, one formed via gradual progression -- or, indeed, any change toward increased proletarian autonomy and equal access to the means of production -- is impossible? No. To suggest this is to witness a self-cesarean, and maintain that stillbirth is the inevitable result of all pregnancy.

 

[Communism] creates equality by bringing everyone down to the lowest level.

 

If we can raise the lowest level of intelligence by one billionth of a Library of Congress's worth (do tell me if you find a better way to express absolute intelligence), then good riddance to the geniuses -- to wit: I would much rather have a hundred thousand simpletons discussing how to build a better dam than have ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety blathering idiots talking about what's going to happen on the next episode of Lost, and ten geniuses arguing about what precisely constitutes a quantum leap.

[Peregrine]

However, does that mean that a true Communist society -- IE, one formed via gradual progression -- or, indeed, any change toward increased proletarian autonomy and equal access to the means of production -- is impossible? No. To suggest this is to witness a self-cesarean, and maintain that stillbirth is the inevitable result of all pregnancy.

 

How do you propose to make this slow change? You're stuck with the basic problem of people controlling more than their "fair share" of the resources. If they give it up voluntarily, all that will accomplish is having someone else take them. As long as our civilization has limited resources to distribute (and to change that, we're talking about that unrealistic scifi technology), there will be inequality.

 

The problem is supporters of communism talk about this gradual progression, but don't really explain how to accomplish it. This isn't a simple issue, we're talking about a progression that requires a dramatic and total shift in human nature towards something much more selfless. And it has to be a simultaneous and total change, or someone less idealistic will move in to snatch up the resources.

 

It's like how we still have murder in our society right now. Sure, the overwhelming majority of people are civilized and have moved beyond it, but even something that universally agreed on isn't 100%. And the tiny minority do a pretty good job of making suggestions like "abolish all police" hopelessly idealistic. If communism accomplishes the same universal agreement, and gets 99% of the population completely devoted to its ideals, you'll still have enough people refusing to fit in and exploiting the system.

 

You pretty much have two equally unlikely possibilities:

 

1) Advance technology so absurdly far that you have a Culture-like utopia, where communism works because greed is obsolete. It's easy to have equality when equality is defined as "whatever you want to be/have". Communism will definitely work if there's no point in exploiting the work of others, because you could just tell your robot servant to go build that 100 foot gold statue of yourself.

 

2) Make a huge breakthrough in psychology, so that you can change one of the most fundamental driving forces in human nature, universally across all of society. But I'm not sure this one is really any more practical...

 

 

If we can raise the lowest level of intelligence by one billionth of a Library of Congress's worth (do tell me if you find a better way to express absolute intelligence), then good riddance to the geniuses -- to wit: I would much rather have a hundred thousand simpletons discussing how to build a better dam than have ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety blathering idiots talking about what's going to happen on the next episode of Lost, and ten geniuses arguing about what precisely constitutes a quantum leap.

 

Two problems here:

 

1) Good luck actually doing that... the pathetic state of the American educational system (the only one I'm familiar enough with to comment on) should be a clear lesson in how that's a real "easier said than done" thing. We struggle to get basic competency from the average person, and you expect to do more within the forseeable future?

 

2) Even if you get this miracle teaching method, you're still going to have inequality. Go ahead, teach the moron hordes so well that they can competently discuss dam design. I'll still be ahead of them, because I'll take the same increase as well. Sure, technology overall will advance and society will benefit, but you'll just change the definition of what counts as the high-end. While your hundred thousand simpletons are designing dams, you'll still need someone to do all the even more complicated things your advances in knowledge just made possible.

[Marxist ßastard]

Well, yes, we would have our work cut out for us. Obviously.

 

However, because this is possible (given time) and -- above all else -- because progression towards this system produces its own benefits, I'm just not seeing how anyone who argues for a push toward Communism is, and I quote, "either a moron, evil, or both."

[Alanador]

Good morning all. Excellent posts! I personally am glad to see Peregrine back, and thanks for your personal insights into communism, also to you Marxist B. But why are we so compelled to label? Does a system need a name to be authenticated? Doesn't every system in existance so far rely on the human endeavor? The focus needs to be on evloving past the definitions, not on re-defining them. Capitalism / Democray needs its working class as much as a communist society does. In the end when that element abandons what ever system has been imposed on it...it fails. Here's an abstract relation...to martial arts...bear with me please...

 

Through out early recorded history many asian nations developed fighting styles...even within what some see as 'karate' there are numerous divisions...same for Kung-fu, (really every other major fighting style as well). Who has been the definative source on these issues...a philosopher...who happened to kick much ass...Bruce Lee. He proposed a style without style...fighting without fighting. The paradox almost seems like it cannot work...yet amazingly he and many of his followers became some of the most efficient scholars of defensive arts. Bruce was condemned by his peers and elders at the time for not only revealing techniques that were protected from the west...but more so...because he challenged their system. Bruce pulled from every know defensive style to find what worked for him...and encouraged everyone to do the same...to make it a journey...instead of a destination. The very fact that his "anti-style" or philosophy needed a name to be related to in the midst of all the other styles bothered him immensely...as that was his MAIN goal...breaking out of preformed thought, and practice.

[loveme4whoiam]

There will always be people who try to exploit the system and act selfishly, so the entire system collapses. Instead of complete equality, you have a system dominated by those selfish enough to take advantage of everyone else's contributions.

 

Then make the system as un-corruptible as possible. As I have said, remove the permenence of "leadership" and have things run on a truly democratic basis, and corruption will be very hard to do.

 

Just look at real-world communist governments, all of them ended up with a vast majority of poor people, dominated by a wealthy and powerful elite and a powerful government.

 

There has never been any country that has even come close to having a Communist society. The only country that has even a remote tie to Communism in my opinion is Cuba, and that's only through a tenuous relationship with Socialism. But just using that country as an example, despite the ridiculous US embargo (which the UN has asked it 12 times to remove) it has the best education and health care system in the world.

 

People aren't equal. For example, I am far more intelligent than most people. And I'm taking advantage of that by getting an engineering degree at a good university, then moving on to a high-paying job where I will enjoy all the benefits of that money. But in a communist system, why would I bother?

 

Perhaps you are more intelligent than most people - does that give you the right to better healthcare, education, and standard of living over those people? And what about those people who, while not being as clever as you, are still utterly required by society to function? The commonly used exampe is a cleaner in a hospital. Without him, the hospital would be filthy and people would die of infections. Without the doctor, people would die from their illnesses. Which one is more important?

And to answer to your question I'd ask you one. If you knew you were going to get those benefits, would you work, or would you sit on your backside all day? I'd imagine you would probably want to work, so why would you not learn to do that demanding, and probably enjoyable job in engineering? If you wish to have a job simply for the perks it brings, I would question yours or anyones fitness for that job. In a Communist society, people would do jobs that they enjoy, which will also have a positive effect on society as a whole.

 

So an entire industry and billions of dollars in income is lost. It doesn't go to my bank account, it doesn't get distributed among the poor and disadvantaged, it just never exists.

 

Exactly! With no money, there is no distinction between poor and rich, and everyone has equal access to all that they require. No-one relies on parcelled out portions in order to live, while people who have earned their money through the exploitation of others live in luxury.

 

This is how human society has been for as long as we have recorded history.

 

I think you missed MBs point. People are selfish because the exploitative nature of society rewards those who are selfish. That is how it has been, as you say, since the beginning of recorded history, and how it will be until things change.

 

Even if it isn't an absolute part of the human brain (and evolution suggests it is... the selfish are the ones who survive in survival of the fittest), human society has far too much inertia to change it.

 

I dislike the idea of social darwinism, as there are just so many examples of selfless people for it to ever be considered an evolutionary process. There is no set pattern of "human nature", just what we learn. If we learn that we get ahead by being a male without a father, most people will be bastards.

 

It is true that we can't change this pattern with a day's worth of work, and a few snappy red hats. That is why a glorious Communist revolt is doomed to failure. If I recall correctly, this phenomenon -- in which even if a nation is completely victorious against the enemy (here, the capitalist features of their own land) in a military sense, they may still lose a war due to the assimilation of their weaker, less developed culture into the enemy's overpowering one -- was commented on quite a bit by Marx, who suggested Communism as the end result of a series of achievements taking place over the course of generations.

 

Very good point MB; this is why I am a bit scornful of anarchists, who DO believe that the instant removal of a government will cause a Communist society to begin.

 

I would much rather have a hundred thousand simpletons discussing how to build a better dam than have ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety blathering idiots talking about what's going to happen on the next episode of Lost, and ten geniuses arguing about what precisely constitutes a quantum leap.

 

That is a fantastic explanation, permit me to quote you in future arguments please MB :). Education is the base right of every single person in my opinion.

 

2) Even if you get this miracle teaching method, you're still going to have inequality. Go ahead, teach the moron hordes so well that they can competently discuss dam design. I'll still be ahead of them, because I'll take the same increase as well. Sure, technology overall will advance and society will benefit, but you'll just change the definition of what counts as the high-end. While your hundred thousand simpletons are designing dams, you'll still need someone to do all the even more complicated things your advances in knowledge just made possible.

 

True, there will always be exceptional people who will be ahead of the curve. But is that any argument to keep the hundred thousand back? Of course not. Arguing against raising the intelligence level of society as whole is, ironically, a bit foolish in my opinion, and smacks a bit of elitism.

 

1) Advance technology so absurdly far that you have a Culture-like utopia, where communism works because greed is obsolete. It's easy to have equality when equality is defined as "whatever you want to be/have". Communism will definitely work if there's no point in exploiting the work of others, because you could just tell your robot servant to go build that 100 foot gold statue of yourself.

 

You are right. Which is why Marx, along with many others, stated that the material conditions of society must be right in order for Communism to succeed. That is why the USSR failed - it entered into "communism" far too early in its development. And as far a golden statue of yourself - why on earth would you need one of those? Try explaining that to the people you would need to mine the gold ore and refine it and see if they would do it.

 

Alanador, I take it you are a pupil of some form of martial arts? :) Your analogy is interesting. I dislike the vilification or, indeed, adulation of anything simply because it falls into a certain category. Instantly hating the idea of Capitalism because you dislike the name is stupid - hating it because you understand the problems it has caused isn't. If you called Communism the Theory of Flubberised Trousers, and it still represented the same ideals, then I'd support it. Of course, not many others would :D

[Alanador]

hi Loveme! Aren't there aspects in ALL systems of government that are good? Communism strives to take care of everyone. Capitalism rewards individual effort. Democracy should strike a balance by allowing voting on how the majority rules, of course if the majority is misled or uninformed, then a faulty aspect of governance is installed, only to have to be redressed at some point in the future when it is realized by all, or a majority, to be so. I know nothing about Marxism (edit: just learned about Carl Marx, thanks all), but I'm sure it must also have good points. Perhaps dictatorships and monarchies even have their pros with cons...though I am at a loss to define one. Instead of saying we must be this or that, aren't there some key fundamentals that flow through all of these ideologies? Things that can be strewn together that are such truths that with or without a name they prevail? Perhaps that is the slow incramentalism you speak of MB? Really we are still all pretty young at this Global Government bit, there is still trial and error occuring all the time, hopefully corrections come about and we learn from failures as much or more than from successes. But if people give up anything due to a minority, then they will never see what is over that horizon.

 

Peregrine, I understand what you are getting at 100%, without incentive there is no drive, although I would say there are degrees between that on/off switch. Have you ever tried teaching? As someone myself who accels in at least 3 fields I find great joy in showing someone not only how I do something, but why. Because you have the ability to understand easier, and were thus taught by someone, your personal responsibility is to turn to the people around you and help them understand (as each one of you has done in this thread for my shortcomings on this topic ;) intentional or not). It is an obligation easily left unfulfilled, by far too many. The connection you make with someone when you are the one to explain something in the terms that they understand defies words. For a moment you step forward...together. Also, you'd be suprised what I have learned from people who have less time in the fields I excel in, as I'm sure you may have been suprised by some engineer who is wiser beyond his/her years...perhaps you yourself are that engineer wise beyond his/her years...if so I'm sure you can think of a few people that took a shining to you, brought you under their wing and paid special attention to you. You should sense, as a duty of honor, this responsibility...if you choose to deny it and insist that you are special among your peers, with no obligation to them...you are missing the point. They just haven't related to your given subject yet, and once you truly understand something...you are the best to try to help them connect with it. Yes, you should recieve for your individual efforts, of course. But your obligation is to somehow give back. Karma, neh?