Not necessarily. It can be non-interventionist; just like the US with regard to democracy.
It’s fantastic that you always discuss this in the idealistic sense, completely unencumbered by reality - the rest of us are focused on what happens when the inevitable human nature takes over.
There is no Communism 2.0 - you didn’t invent anything new.
I am speaking theoretically. All the failures of communism are failures of administration and not failures of the philosophy.
[/quote]
False. You cannot make the irrational work.
Every living thing must act for its self-interest, according to its defining characteristic. It otherwise acts on the premise of death.
The philosophy of Communism is unnatural. It is a death wish. The only way to make it work (temporarily) is at gunpoint. Every society that tried it either collapsed, gave up on it, or is dying as we speak (North Kores is a prime ex — a society of death).
[quote]kroby wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
the rest of us are focused on what happens when the inevitable human nature takes over.
What is human nature?
Lie, cheat, steal to name three.[/quote]
Altruism is actually an absence of morality. Since it is unnatural, many people will not practice it. Since they equate morality with altruism, they give up on morality altogether and act immorally.
To act in your RATIONAL self interest is moral. It does NOT involve victims. Unselfishness requires victims; notice that the 3 things you mentioned (lie, cheat, steal) all require OTHERS in order to do them. They are acts of unselfishness. Why? Because each is against your rational self interest. (The perp declares each of the 3 as applicable to humans; therefore, they can be done to him.)
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
the rest of us are focused on what happens when the inevitable human nature takes over.
What is human nature?
[/quote]
Human nature is largely the result of two phychological theories, classical conditioning and operant conditioning.
Classical conditioning is largely responding to an associated stimulus. Operant conditioning is positive, negative, and punishment. Positive reinforcement is rewarded behavior. Negative reinforcement is unrewarded behavior. Punishment reinforcement is behavior that is punished.
Not only humans, but most animals in the animals kingdom follow this sort of model. Negative Reinforcement is used when you want a behavior to stop. Yet communist philosophy encompasses negative reinforcement and a modus operandi. Work, achieve for you community. What does the individual get, nada. If you want a behavior to slow down or stop, negative reinforcement is a good model to use.
So if you want hard work and achievement to stop, by all means don’t reward it and it will go away.
That is what’s wrong with communism. It’s good for the lazy, they get rewarded for not doing shit (positive reinforcement) and bad for the achievers because what they accomplish gets given to everybody so they reap no rewards for their labor (negative reinforcment).
How hard would you have studied for that PhD if there were no PhD to get, just the satisfaction of having the knowledge to use for everybody?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
“Given to whimsy” means sometimes rational, sometimes irrational - human nature. Yep - exactly the same as I said.
You really haven’t thought about this much, have you?[/quote]
I think about it constantly. I am obsessed with it. It is my life.
Whimsy doesn’t mean we cannot sacrifice nor accept responsibility for our actions. By your definition whimsy also predicts the failures of “individuality”.
There is always new knowledge to glean because you and I are both incapable of conceiving every possible scenario in which something might work or not. Its a group effort here–thanks for participating, commie.[/quote]
Yes, but there are two concepts you should get familiar with: the law of diminishing returns and opportunity cost.
Diminishing returns: at some point, each additional input yields less and less output. Discussion of communism is at the “diminished” end of that.
Opportunity cost: the cost of spending your time compared to the value of the foregone alternative. Once you reach the point that discussion of communism isn’t yielding much - as in, now, for anyone who isn’t new to it - every hour you spend trying to glean that next marginally useful bit of knowledge from communism is an hour lost thinking about something that yields more knowledge.
Like, anything.
But you cling to “communism” like the stereotypical “freshman in philosophy class”. Enjoy your wasted time.
[quote]karva wrote:
The question that interests me is, does communism as a governmental system differentiate from full blown monarchy? I mean, the strategies for survival in the system are quite alike, aren’t they?[/quote]
You know, “laborers” and serfs are quite alike. I think the difference is one of subtle force. The serfs would just get kicked out into the wilderness for not working the land. The workers (laborers, whatever) would end up in stockades, gulags, etc. or just shot dead.
The Pharaonic model of rule has always been imitated. Both exhibit authoritarian rule. Same with dictatorships and theocracy…
[quote]kroby wrote:
karva wrote:
The question that interests me is, does communism as a governmental system differentiate from full blown monarchy? I mean, the strategies for survival in the system are quite alike, aren’t they?
You know, “laborers” and serfs are quite alike. I think the difference is one of subtle force. The serfs would just get kicked out into the wilderness for not working the land. The workers (laborers, whatever) would end up in stockades, gulags, etc. or just shot dead.
The Pharaonic model of rule has always been imitated. Both exhibit authoritarian rule. Same with dictatorships and theocracy…[/quote]
Sorry, I missed the subtle force there. Was it the laborers or serfs that exhibited it? And what are you?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But you cling to “communism” like the stereotypical “freshman in philosophy class”. Enjoy your wasted time.[/quote]
No more than I cling to rationalism, empiricism, existentialism, skepticism, idealism, pragmatism. They are merely academic pursuits.
Aren’t I the only one who can judge for my self the definition of wasted time? For how much you tout individuality you have no concept of how it really works.
I understand how communism is viewed by most people, what I am trying to do is “reeducate” people what the communist ideal is and restore it back to it’s original intent–which isn’t control of a welfare State but rather a means of escaping an ownership and competition society.
.
I do not know where you have your ideas from, but “original communism” very much revolves around an objective price theory which leads to the idea that profit is immoral and that a better society could be built by eliminating it.
There is and was nothing warm and fuzzy about it, those were falsfiable hyphoteses and they were wrong, end of story.
I am talking about Communism2.0.
“Profits” aren’t necessarily evil but they are based on arbitrary valuation of resources and labor. Its a double edged sword in that profits are necessary to motivate people but the greed that results from learning to make a profit is bad. People lie, cheat and steal just to make a buck and many people are disenfranchised by these owners of industry–with the help of government regulation.[/quote]
Ahhh, communism is
If everyone cared and nobody cried
If everyone loved and nobody lied
If everyone shared
and swallowed their pride
We?d see the day when nobody died
If everyone cared and nobody cried
If everyone loved and nobody lied
If everyone shared
and swallowed their pride
We?d see the day when nobody died
Oh my…
The rest you wrote is the usual mix of economic lies and wish to associate “capitalism” with “bad” and communism with “good” though them communist historically had a mighty mean streak.
I get you.
Fairy tale land is communism and reality and human nature are often disappointing.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kroby wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat36 wrote:
That’s why, Liftvs, communism doesn’t work. The benifit of communist governements is temporary, they gave food and shelter to those who had none. What happend when your belly is full and your head dry are you satisfied, or do you strive for more?
I agree. A communist government cannot work. A communist economy can work with the above conditions I laid out. People willingly participate in these “contracts” more than you think.
Communist practices (contracts) work on a small scale, but it cannot work large scale. Communist economy? As in countrywide? Global?
Are you suggesting that small communes reach for one another creating a cooperative? A collective? Now you’ve brought in the need for one community to get the most out of what it has, perhaps at the detriment of another.
Maybe because they live in the far north, where it gets cold, and they can’t grow crops year round. Competition does not work to better the communist economy. Yet competition is always the end result. That’s why a communist economy can’t work. Or did I miss something?
Who ever said competitive trade is not allowed? Communes are free to trade with whomever they wish for whatever they need or want.
The point is that that there is no competition within the commune; on the contrary, they collectively compete with other outside communes or enterprises for goods and services and everyone is benefited by it; not just one person or group of persons in the commune. Competition works–just not with one’s own family–and that is what a commune is.[/quote]
Well, first of all you are not a communist but a communitarist or maybe a syndicalist.
Some of Lixys “libertarian socialism” comes closes.
Of course, your idea only transfers the dictorship from “Whitehall to the townhall”.
Not necessarily. It can be non-interventionist; just like the US with regard to democracy.
It’s fantastic that you always discuss this in the idealistic sense, completely unencumbered by reality - the rest of us are focused on what happens when the inevitable human nature takes over.
There is no Communism 2.0 - you didn’t invent anything new.
I am speaking theoretically. All the failures of communism are failures of administration and not failures of the philosophy.
[/quote]
BS.
Again, objective price theories that are just plain wrong, conclusion drawn from this that were of course also wrong and histories automatic march to communism.
No more than I cling to rationalism, empiricism, existentialism, skepticism, idealism, pragmatism. They are merely academic pursuits. [/quote]
No - the other ones have some practical merit.
I never said you couldn’t waste your own time, but I am not a relativist. The value of “communism” can be measured outside of a person’s individual taste for it.
As for individuality, you make an obvious mistake - I never said as an individual you couldn’t spend your time as you see fit. Be as individual as you like. But I believe you are wrong - so as a corollary, you have every right to be individually wrong as much as your heart is content.
Don’t confuse recognizing “individuality” with the very different concept of “thinking each individual defines truth as they see fit”. They don’t.
As in, just because you like communism and want to think about it 10 hours a day doesn’t make it any more or less valid as a concept.
Again, objective price theories that are just plain wrong, conclusion drawn from this that were of course also wrong and histories automatic march to communism.
No, the theory was, like, wrong.
[/quote]
Exactly. A theoretical exercise in communism that ignores human nature is flawed from the outset as a theoretical model - communism is about humans and their interactions. It is about nothing else. No one discusses communism without the human element.
The human element can’t be left out. And, therefore, if the human element undermines all the theoretical constructs, the theory is on its face wrong and leads to no useful knowledge gained, because there is no theory without the humans it is supposed to be about.
[quote]karva wrote:
You know, “laborers” and serfs are quite alike. I think the difference is one of subtle force. The serfs would just get kicked out into the wilderness for not working the land. The workers (laborers, whatever) would end up in stockades, gulags, etc. or just shot dead.
The Pharaonic model of rule has always been imitated. Both exhibit authoritarian rule. Same with dictatorships and theocracy…
Sorry, I missed the subtle force there. Was it the laborers or serfs that exhibited it? And what are you?
[/quote]
Serfs are to monarchies as laborers are to communism. Both are ruled by authoritarians. So, I agreed(?) that both systems are very similar in many respects as they relate to their subjects. Subtle force (tongue in cheek) was described as banishment or a bullet in the head. Both get the desired resuilt: complete submission and compliance.
What am I? Disenchanted, disenfranchised… a pragmatic optimist… a conservative anarchist… a cog in the wheel of the machine that grinds men to dust.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As in, just because you like communism and want to think about it 10 hours a day doesn’t make it any more or less valid as a concept.[/quote]
Agreed. I just happen to think there is more to it than the “it doesn’t work because of ‘human nature’” argument.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Exactly. A theoretical exercise in communism that ignores human nature is flawed from the outset as a theoretical model - communism is about humans and their interactions. It is about nothing else. No one discusses communism without the human element.
[/quote]
Then how did the “human element” get left out of capitalism? Did our owners forget to consider the evils of greed and the motivation to “dick-over your neighbor” for profit? You are selective in your consideration of the “human element”.
For that matter, what other element could there be but a human element to any human action?
Then how did the “human element” get left out of capitalism?[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about?
Capitalism is built on the basis of human nature - its great success is that it doesn’t deny it.
That is the basic of capitalism - going all the way to Adam Smith.
Seriously, Lifticus - you are showing quite a bit of ignorance.
That can’t possibly be right, because capitalism embraces the “human element” unapologetically. No one discusses capitalism outside of the context of human nature.
“Greed” as it were figures directly into capitalism - no one ignores it.
Looks as though you have no idea what you are talking about.
Yes, good question - so why bother with discussion of communism while ignoring the human element?