Sweet... You're right about that. I had something really good that I was gonna say in my reply, but by luck... I forgot it. So if I remember, I'll post it.
Yes
No
Sweet... You're right about that. I had something really good that I was gonna say in my reply, but by luck... I forgot it. So if I remember, I'll post it.
Originally Posted by Leeza
Yes, well, personally I don't want to discuss about communism to someone who has no idea on what it is. Saying Russia was a communist nation, or a marxist socialist nation, is plain wrong. I posted a link to the first pages of a book on amazon, the one written by from. Just read the very little pages available to know at least what Marixsm is not. However, personally, I feel it is necessary to read at least the first 92 pages of that book for a very basic idea on marxist thought. A more developed thing would come by reading The Capital (Or at least a big part of it) or the manuscripts. Also, the Communist Manifesto is preety brief, but it makes a basic reading to understand a few things.
You can wear clother of Mao, Che, Lenin and Ho Chi Minh if you catually know who they are and what they did. I can say I know the actions of those men, more or less, being Lenin and Che the ones I know better, baing Mao and Ho Chi Minh the ones I know about slightly, buy enough to know I do not like them.Interesting. I guess I see from where you're coming at. Recently I've seen a lot of posers and emo kids (no offense to anyone, but its generally true) wearing clothes with Ché, Mao, Lenin, and Ho Chi Mihn. I guess I see where you're coming from; if you wanna give me a link to your post on Modernization, I'll read it as well.
Well, here is the post. Get ready for a long, pedantic reading:
http://forums.eyesonff.com/showthread.php?t=47280
And for some comedy, check this and specially, in that site, this wonderful pearl, la creme de la creme. One of the teachers of my university is the translator of The Capital to Spanish, he enjoyed that site a lot.
Yeah, most of the people I've seen wearing them, when I asked about it, they were like "Who?" or "What?" or something of that nature.
Muchas gracias, I'll get onto reading it.Well, here is the post. Get ready for a long, pedantic reading:
http://forums.eyesonff.com/showthread.php?t=47280
And for some comedy, check this and specially, in that site, this wonderful pearl, la creme de la creme. One of the teachers of my university is the translator of The Capital to Spanish, he enjoyed that site a lot.
Communism seems to me to reward laziness. If I get whatever I need, regardless of how much work I do, why should I work at all? It would be in my best interests to become injured to the point where I can't work. Or to have as many children as possible, so as to increase my needs.
If I'm misunderstanding communism, then someone needs to explain what it is, in concrete terms. Saying "China and Russia aren't REAL communism" is the No True Scotsman fallacy. Everything works really great, as a concept. Something which seems to have failed miserably everywhere it was attempted isn't a good thing, to me. "But it was run by corrupt people!" Well so is pretty much every government on the planet today. Seems to me that capitalism is the most free system, and therefore probably the best. By freedom I don't mean "Everyone gets the same stuff", I mean "Everyone gets what they earn". Capitalism is far from perfect, but at least I have a chance under it. What do I have under communism?
Well, at least we can say what is not.
But do you seriously expect for a member of the forum to start typing what communism is? The capital consists on thousands of pages, and add the manuscripts, the manifesto, essays on alienated work...well...you get the idea. Of course, you don't need to read ALL that: The book in my last post, for example, more or less explains communism in a social and psychological aspect. It may not be the most complete thing, but it's very good.
Well, I study philosophy, so I have to know Marx well, it's in my exams and it is constant reference in social philosophy and ethics. In my opinion, he is a very good thinker, but very misunderstood to, and for that I have to blame both capitalists and...those guys in Russia, whatever they are. I call them "vulgar communists". Of course, I don't agree with everything, his critique to capitalism, I must say, is excellent. His theory of history..well...I never thought you can give history a structure as if it was science, like Marx, Hegel and Comte tried to. And the communist society he suggests, I'm all for it. Can it be applied? Well I hope so, you have to have hope in something. Same goes for anarchy. I certainly hate what there is now, of that I am sure. I may not have a 100% formed philosophy on what I want (I'll probably won't either, for me thought is always passing through), yet I certainly know what I don't want, and it's what we have. And by assuming nothing better is possible, I am being obedient to power, and that is something I am not particulary good at.
Plus, I must say marxism as a theory is rather convincing, even if it has it's problems. Heh, as a little anecdote, my teacher, the one translating The Capital, used to be a catholic priest friend of the Franco regime. He regented a school and believed in dogmatic, strict religious education. Then may 1968 arrived, he was afraid of a "commie invasion", infiltrated into the movement and...well...
I can probably explain capitalism in less than a paragraph, not very deeply but still enough for you to get the picture. I only ask you to define communism because any time anyone says something about it, you say "No, that's not what it REALLY is!" without saying anything further. So explain how people are wrong. Explain the differences between China and Russia and "real" communism.
I believe communism can work, given the right circumstances and good leaders (this hasn't really happened thus far, with the possible exception of Tito). Capitalism is a no-brainer; communism requires a lot more work. But the rewards are greater.
Communism seems to me to reward laziness. If I get whatever I need, regardless of how much work I do, why should I work at all? It would be in my best interests to become injured to the point where I can't work. Or to have as many children as possible, so as to increase my needs. - Unne.
Depends on the person. I don't earn a lot relative to most people, but I work hard. I think working should be about much more than money. If people were able to perform their ideal job, I'm sure money would be little more than a side issue.
I think people in a communist state would generally look down on those that don't work. It wouldn't be socially acceptable. The actions of others affect the progress of the state and, hence, you, the worker. Thus, it's in the best interests of everyone to work and to encourage others to work.
There's always the option of horribly and publicly executing any slackers.
If I explain thousand of pages in one paragraph/one page/ten pages, you will not understand it completly, and will have a partial knowledge.
OK, in the link I posted (Fromm) it explains why Russia isn't communist, it's the part of the book they allow you to read at amazon. If you want me to do it directly, I will:
Russia was an alienating system with work being opressive and alienating, not free, intentional, creative or edificating. The main objective in communism is the emancipation from alienation, starting with alienated work. Now, do you see even a minimmum attempt to that in Russia? Actually, if marixsm is supposed to defend freedom above all, since that is the main objective...well...do you think Stalin protected freedom much?
Communism had success, I believe, in Yugoslavia under Josip Tito. Saying it doesn't work is just crazy.
Finally one who has the same view as I. w00tness!!1
I have heard about it, but never looked into it that much. Are you sure it succeeded? I think I should look on some information about it.
it could work, if humans lowered their standards and didn't have that little thing called "Ambition". But humans do, therefore; no, it cannot work. But you can't deny that it has it's positives. But like others said, with the right kind of leader, it can't be too horrible.
it could work, it jsut needs a few small revisions.
Yes.
I believe the truest enemy of humanity is the infrastructure. I'm more along the nihilistic train of thought. The modern infrastructure is so powerful and brutal that the suprastructure(the real important part) is culturally void and spiritually corrupt.What really bums me out is that there is no easy solution. In my life my struggle will be reduced to voting for the Green Party and a protest or two. Physical combat is tantamount to suicide(and makes the 2nd amendment outdated). The powers at be hold the keys to romantic idealism.
Anyways, my question is: did we already have cultures and societies pass through communism? Certain indigenious populations of the americas before 1492 had no(recognizable) infrastructure yet did not succumb to vulgar behaviour. That is the current fear of liberation. No state=complete chaos. Well, the indigenious populations did not rape or steal or murder. They were very spiritual, again an idea supposedly supressed by communism. All modern crimes more or less stem from power and its functions. Another society to consider is Tibet before Red China destroyed it. It seems the simpler cultures did much better than their more 'civilized' counterparts.
No power=No crimes
Smile even though its breaking
Posting Permissions
