Are You A Communist?

[Yerda]

Therefore, to be a communist is to be a human.

Perhaps. But to be a Marxist-Leninist is to be anti-human and this is roughly what people mean when they say communist.

 

[metis]

Perhaps. But to be a Marxist-Leninist is to be anti-human and this is roughly what people mean when they say communist.

Which is one reason why you see a winky face on my last post.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I prefer to use the "Neo-Marxist economics" terminology, but then I typically have to explain this as well, which I briefly did do, largely because most are not likely to be familiar with that terminology or that economic approach.

 

[Typist]

My main worry at this point is that if nothing can be done to reverse the trends of malaise, political gridlock, internal rot, and the corruption (as you mention corporations buying the government), the system itself will function more and more at a diminished capacity coupled with greater internal confusion and dissension. That could lead to a rise in extremist activity from both ends of the spectrum. At that point, there may only be two choices left.

Great point, agreed. A likely scenario is that the system continues to degrade, and then some sudden event pushes it over a ledge. As example, the financial crisis of 2008, which by all accounts came within an inch of being the next Great Depression.

 

[metis]

I'm not a worrying-type of person, but in late 2008 to early 2009, I had a lot of trouble sleeping at night-- and that's not an exaggeration. As one economist said in February of 2009, our entire economy was "at the edge of the table". Even though I had taken economics in both my undergrad and grad work, I was ill-prepared to understand why this all was unraveling in front of us, and this is largely because there was no such thing as "the shadow-banking system" back in the 1960's-70's. I had to read like a madman in 2009+ to try and understand this style of economics, but I don't feel bad because Greenspan testified in from of a congressional committee that even he couldn't keep up with it.

 

[Typist]

The idea that human nature is inherently selfish is a product of theology

Theology has been discussing this longer than anyone else, but theology is not required to make this case.

Original sin can be one way to refer to the inherently divisive nature of thought, that which we are made of. Because we are made of an inherently divisive medium, we experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", which naturally gives rise to a selfish perspective. "Everything else" is very very big, and "me" is very very small, which suggests we'd best grab whatever we can given our perilous situation.

The fundamental problem for religion or any philosophy is that it is made largely of thought, the very thing causing the problem at the most fundamental level.

the idea that human selfisness is innate comes from the concept of original sin. it does not represent a scientific (or more accurately, materialist) understanding of man's nature,

The problem is not with the religious insight, which is dead on, but with long outdated language which no longer connects with many modern audiences. Because religion often relies on authority for it's credibility, it clings to ancient texts and wordings which undermine it's ability to make a convincing case.

The idea that capitalism is natural is eqivilent to saying it is because "god says so".

I think capitalism works to the degree it does because it doesn't argue with our fundamental human situation, the thought generated prison of apparent division within our minds, the "me". The problem of course is that it liberates the "me" to get in to all kinds of big trouble.

Communism rests on the argument that human beings can experience "moral progress" through increased scientific knowledge of human behaviour and motivations and that behaviour can be changed by education and consciousness self-mastery.

Maybe this is true, but the process is so incredibly slow that we're no where ready for communism yet?

This is actually the thing which keeps pushing me further and further left. It seems that the ruling class is testing the capitalist system to it's limits and is oblivious to them. Human beings (and the planet) can only take so much before things start to unravel.

Yes, that's what I'm saying too. They are already unbelievably rich, but that's never enough, and so they push, push, push for more, pushing the entire system right up to the edge.

Perhaps the Chinese are on the right track, however horrible it is to say that? They have liberated economic energy, but still have a strong central power as a safeguard.

Ultimately, Democratic Socialism and Communism differ only in the destination and to some extent the speed and methods to get there.

We are on the same page. The reason I might be a communist is I'm not sure we still have time for the slow method.

 

[von bek]

I'm an ex-Marxist-Leninist, I abandoned it when I abandoned materialism. I still consider myself a socialist, however.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In a free market society no one forces anyone to stick the vile things in their faces. In a communistic society the ruling entity(s) would deny them the right to be stupid in the first place.

That's not how a communist society would work. Sure, some of them may ban smoking altogether, but many of them probably wouldn't care. Communism is not synonymous with North Korea.

Perhaps. But to be a Marxist-Leninist is to be anti-human and this is roughly what people mean when they say communist.

Doubtfully. Sure, they're out there, just like neo-Nazis are, but there is a variety of communism. Marxism tends to be more common with union labors for its pro-worker approach; feminism over its restructuring and balancing of the family, and because of Engel's works; academia, where neo-Marxists are popular in the humanities for its approach towards ideology and looking beneath the surface of things. But there are also religious-based communist groups. Hunter-gatherer and nomadic peoples tend to be communist. Even anarchy has its flavors of communism.

I had to read like a madman in 2009+ to try and understand this style of economics, but I don't feel bad because Greenspan testified in from of a congressional committee that even he couldn't keep up with it.

I've not heard of anyone who actually does understand it all. It's become so complicated that it's going to require major legislation to get it back under control and comprehension. There are so many trails, so many loopholes, so many technicalities, so much of this, so much of that...from what I've tried to get from it it makes Heidegger seem like he's on the same reading level as Dr. Seuss.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, I'm not a Communist. @Red Economist knows what I am.

 

[Yerda]

Doubtfully. Sure, they're out there, just like neo-Nazis are, but there is a variety of communism. Marxism tends to be more common with union labors for its pro-worker approach; feminism over its restructuring and balancing of the family, and because of Engel's works; academia, where neo-Marxists are popular in the humanities for its approach towards ideology and looking beneath the surface of things. But there are also religious-based communist groups. Hunter-gatherer and nomadic peoples tend to be communist. Even anarchy has its flavors of communism.

Aye, there are probably more communisms than there are communists but when people refer to communism they are usually refering to the Marxist-Leninist ideology of the Bolsheviks. Even if they have know idea what any of those words denote.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Aye, there are probably more communisms than there are communists but when people refer to communism they are usually refering to the Marxist-Leninist ideology of the Bolsheviks. Even if they have know idea what any of those words denote.

I misunderstood: I thought you meant that is what people mostly mean when referring to themselves as a communist.

 

[Laika]

We are on the same page. The reason I might be a communist is I'm not sure we still have time for the slow method.

Yeah. if that keeps eating away at you, that's a pretty solid recipe for ending up in the far left. The climate change stuff scares the living c**p out of me as I'm young enough to live to see the later half of this century when things unravel. it should be the easiest decision to make but our politicians are saying, "save the world? that sounds kind of expensive? I don't think we can afford that."

 

[Politesse]

My "Rate My Professor" page insists that I am... apparently I have offended a few of my students with my frank appraisals of the banking system. In reality, I have very strong socialist leanings but ultimately prefer a libertarian approach, supporting only those programs that can be demonstrated to have a genuine common benefit. Within small communities, I think that expansive reciprocity is obviously warranted, and indeed, poor communities tend to recognize this instinctively. It becomes a problem when nation-states attempt to emulate this kind of success however. When the numbers get big, the powerful start to have a hard time keeping it in their pants, the intermediate levels fragment over the gleanings. and the poor somehow manage to stay poor. True communism can thus never come into being. The intermediate stages will always do you in. And generosity is a double-edged sword when it comes at the edge of one.

 

[Laika]

My "Rate My Professor" page insists that I am... apparently I have offended a few of my students with my frank appraisals of the banking system. In reality, I have very strong socialist leanings but ultimately prefer a libertarian approach, supporting only those programs that can be demonstrated to have a genuine common benefit. Within small communities, I think that expansive reciprocity is obviously warranted, and indeed, poor communities tend to recognize this instinctively. It becomes a problem when nation-states attempt to emulate this kind of success however. When the numbers get big, the powerful start to have a hard time keeping it in their pants, the intermediate levels fragment over the gleanings. and the poor somehow manage to stay poor. True communism can thus never come into being. The intermediate stages will always do you in. And generosity is a double-edged sword when it comes at the edge of one.

lol. Have you considered Anarchism as that often mixes socialist and libertarian aspirations better?

 

[BSM1]

That's not how a communist society would work. Sure, some of them may ban smoking altogether, but many of them probably wouldn't care. Communism is not synonymous with North Korea.


I think you've missed the point. A communistic society by design has to have a totalitarian government to ensure any success. The foremost enemy of communism is free choice.

 

[metis]

Depends on how one defines "communism". Or maybe it's better for me to say that there are many different flavors of communism.

 

[Stevicus]

This is actually the thing which keeps pushing me further and further left. It seems that the ruling class is testing the capitalist system to it's limits and is oblivious to them. Human beings (and the planet) can only take so much before things start to unravel.

Agreed. What I find interesting is that, when looking at public forums and debates about current events and the economic situation, I wonder about possible parallels between the attitudes of today's ruling class versus the ruling class in Russia prior to 1917. They never saw the revolution coming, and even up to the very end, they never could understand the reasons why.

Likewise, today's "free market" crowd seems to be exuding the same level of cluelessness as contained in the infamous phrase "Let them eat cakes!"

One thing that's different now than in previous eras is the world is far more economically globalized, mainly due to capitalist advocacy and insistence. It would be more than ironic if the capitalists' reckless push towards globalism actually ends up bringing humanity a few steps closer to world revolution.