Current state of the International Proletarian Revolution

[Cuchulainn]

Originally Posted by makarios68

... Which is why i pointed out that the vast majority of people do not want to rule or govern. This task will always fall upon those who hunger for it - in effect, the politicians. I don't believe it is possible for a communist society to exist in the utopian image that some people have. This is because the vast majority of people are not political enough to be interested in running their society. And so we pass the burden to others who are willing to do the task.
...

I agree that currently most people dont want to rule or govern, the majority is political rather disinterested. But people would be more political interested if it would be easier for them to take part on political decisions, thats usually not so easy in representative democracies compared to direct democracies.

Switzerland is a example were the people are much more political interested than in most representative democracies, because they can take part on important decisions. They can vote for or against most laws they make in their pretty small country.

@topic
I also like the idea of communism, but currently the humans are probably not ready yet for it. More economical and financial crises have to come and will come. Capitalism can work as long as there is a economic growth.

[SlackerLinux2]

Originally Posted by makarios68

I haven't really got the time to dabble with semantics. Suffice it to say that political theory and political practice are very closely inter-linked.


The terms 'communist society' and 'leaders' are not compatible. A communist society is supposed to have no leader/s. Which is why i pointed out that the vast majority of people do not want to rule or govern. This task will always fall upon those who hunger for it - in effect, the politicians. I don't believe it is possible for a communist society to exist in the utopian image that some people have. This is because the vast majority of people are not political enough to be interested in running their society. And so we pass the burden to others who are willing to do the task.

This is why we need a political system that reigns in the worst excesses of the power-hungry. In a capitalist system we might get a retired actor or a bumbling fool as leader, but at least it isn't Stalin or a Chairman Mau. These tyrants were allowed their excesses under a different kind of system.

well better then the ex lawyers and accountants who are running the show now kinda wish we had an actor or a fool then we would know where their interests lie
in Australia we have a show called "parliament question time" where they video some of what they do and if you watch it it really does make you think why the hell would anyone want to vote any of these people in they act like a class of 10year olds making disturbances when the others speak some sleeping etc the people answering the question never get to the point they just go around in circles and we vote for theses people to be in power. crazy crazy system we live in

prob the same for most country's sad thing is whoever you vote for they all are the same

[Syd_Vicious]

I will post this as a short synopsis of a rather interesting article that was published circa 1976 in relationship to the egalitarian/tribal society of Afghanistan that was Titled "There are no more Khans" (I have it on my work computer, but cant seem to find a link through Google right now). First a short synopsis of Afghanistan's tribal society sans any religious perspective so any religious arguments will be avoided.

(this next part is dramatically paraphrased down)

Afghanistan is a primary rural country with the vast majority of individuals and tribes growing food for sustenance and rarely for sale. They utilize a system called Shuras that is an elected counsel from the tribe meant to maintain peace and they operated transparently unless action was called for with social disputes. During the time of this article there were individuals known as Khans, they were individuals who had more than the common afghani. They used this "having more" to give more back to the tribes and ppl so the tribes maintained a somewhat egalitarian status - everyone had equal say the khans just had a little more land, a little more luck in growing crops than others or a little of both. Thinking from a socialist perspective even though they got more they put that more back into the community.

Now the curious thing that happened is that some Khans decided to better their capability to grow crops by purchasing tractors. The standard tribemen were still using their standard non-tech farming tools. Amazingly this almost completely killed the egalitarian nature of the tribes. Khans became more interested in their own crops and to pay for the tractors they charged the tractors usage onto the people they helped. They made themselves richer by collecting profit from the crops they grew on their land and the fees charged to pay for the tractor. They no longer completely gave back to the tribe. All this from the purchase of one innovation.

Now the reason I post this is because it is a scenario to think about amongst the current debates on this post. This is trying to change the dialogue between capitalist, socialist, communist rhetoric from the this is right your wrong perspective of some posts to what you would actually think of doing in order to bring equilibrium (through whatever method) by thinking of the following questions:

1. Did something go wrong here?
2. What do I think went wrong
3. Was there a capability to interdict the wrong doing without disrupting the peoples lives and standard of living?
4. Did something go right here?
5. Was there something that could have been done to increase the other ppls capabilities without bankrupting those who had invested in tractors?
6. What would you have done differently?

I think this way you will identify each others premises in a better grouping than getting scattershot/peacemeal quotations or sayings - possibly allowing for more objectivity.

Also all this talk of revolution is lacking substance at this point, a revolution historically comes from five areas.

1. Controlling the people (whether they are in agreement by choice or through propaganda)
2. Destablizing the current governments centers of gravity through non-kinetic methods (utilizing the populace for protests, demonstrations, key leadership engagements, replacing current government services with those from the revolutionary organization)
3. Forceful action against the current government that can remove the current government
4. Removing international influence from countries that supported the former government
5. Removing international influence from countries that supported your cause allowing you to be a sovereign state.

Without all of those items you are just supporting an insurgency.

[Vythica]

Nothing went wrong. This scenario went like it always does. The whole problem starts with it being "almost" egalitarian. This isn't the goal of communism isn't "almost" egalitarian, it is egalitarian. That's the whole problem, any time you have one or more parties with "slightly more" you will encounter a similar scenario. That's why it's imperative that everyone be completely equal. Only then can a true egalitarian state be realized.

[Henri_Freundlich]

Originally Posted by Vythica

I like to think that human beings learn from our mistakes and take precautions against making them again.

Vyth, don't be so naive.

There will *always* be people around to exploit the situation, regardless of the Political/Economical state.

Man cannot live on Marxist ideas about redistributing bread alone. The Internet was not built on open-source alone, but on commerce and walled gardens which help commerce and value thrive. It would be nice if this weren't so, but pretending it *is* so is just another version of Stone Soup.

-- Registered Democrat Prokofy Neva: Bartle the Scrivener

Man cannot be trusted to do the *right* thing for society. We are images of the flawed man (human beings), are we not?

[Syd_Vicious]

Originally Posted by Vythica

Nothing went wrong. This scenario went like it always does. The whole problem starts with it being "almost" egalitarian. This isn't the goal of communism isn't "almost" egalitarian, it is egalitarian. That's the whole problem, any time you have one or more parties with "slightly more" you will encounter a similar scenario. That's why it's imperative that everyone be completely equal. Only then can a true egalitarian state be realized.

But someone always having more will always be the problem The only real solution I can interpret from your answer since you would not work from the scenario questions to work with what you have been given, is that everyone must be first reduced to base level 0 standard of living. level 0 only representing true equality. In some respects by that measure is the only true way to have an egalitarian society where no one has more, because no one has anything. No advantages, no competition, no external variables, and almost no free will of choice.

Continuing with the everyone must have equal share principle your answer does not seemingly fit well when environmental variables are introduced. Sometimes on some land crops will fail, this will create an immediate "has more" situation for those who have crops that do not fail. So is the solution to take the land away from the side that crops have grown to give to those who have land that crops have failed? Or do you give a portion of the crops to those who have not produced in order to sustain them until they can produce again? If you chose the latter that fits within the original Khan principles above where those that have more give to those who do not. If you chose to give land to those who are now without, how will you regulate who gets what if you have 6 successful planting areas and 7 failures? If you go back to your post about small tribunals that act behind the scenes and say that everyone involved is in a commune of sorts, you still get the have not principle when one commune is not producing as much as the others and must seek external aid. This would be a communal Khan concept where communes in more fertile land would give to those in less fertile land.

Also with being completely equal you need to define when that equality begins and stops. Mental Equality can not be controlled unless you kill everyone below and above a specified range, physical equality would need to be defined (speed and strength or does having all your limbs matter?) and then you have the talent equality that must be defined as well (what must everyone be capable of doing). There are a number of other variables left to be addressed and defined that further confound the issue like emotional endurance, genetic requirements (those with hereditary disorders), and personality.

True equality can only exist in a controlled lab where external variables are negated and risk management is in place to aid in mitigating unforeseen challenges. The almost-egalitarian framework is what works in reality because no one can control all the external variables, true egalitarianism is only viable in simulation.

Note: egalitarianism as mentioned refers to the economic version in re-distributive economics, not the political version

[Zixmund]

Imagine a world where is no money. You go to the shop and get all what you need (milk,bread..) everyone will get the same no matter what job he have if he is a doctor with 10 years in school or a construction worker who didnt even finished his primary school and never worked hard on his self. But we are humans and our animal instinct lead us to fight and be better then others. Creating a society like this will make it passive none will like to be better then others because there isnt any benefit from it. This is why communist failed in most of the world.. Also its tooooooo late to change something it was tooo late for the world when Lenin was born. Now you can say your opinion in media or make a movie about what you hate in politics or society... this was impossible in communism and tell me what is the diference ? Nothing you wont change anything the world is going the same way no matter what ideology you have only thing what matters is the people who lead it.

[mr_scsi]

As I read all these posts it saddens me that I and my brothers, fought, bled, and some of us even died, all to make sure you were free to make these posts.


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety" Benjamin Franklin (1759)

[terekon]

Originally Posted by mr_scsi

As I read all these posts it saddens me that I and my brothers, fought, bled, and some of us even died, all to make sure you were free to make these posts.


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety" Benjamin Franklin (1759)

Some of the ppl in this thread have fought. Even seen ppl die for this alleged freedom. Is freedom having your conversations recorded? Is it having your mail gone through? Is it being put on no fly lists and terrorist watch lists for voicing an opinion or praying to a different god?

The ppl who gave up liberty for their freedoms is every person who was born into a country that sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. I agree entirely with Ben Franklin on this. But this isnt the first time we have lost little pieces of our freedom.

How about during WWII when we started rounding up Japanese americans and putting them in concentration camps? FREEDOM! Or when the communist party was outlawed? FREEDOM!

I agree with your statement entirely. Just with modification on who its directed at.

[veluchami]

Originally Posted by mr_scsi

As I read all these posts it saddens me that I and my brothers, fought, bled, and some of us even died, all to make sure you were free to make these posts.

Sorry bro, you and your brothers have been USED in the name of patriotism to support wanton corporate greed. We are all pawns in a corporate game of chess. Why do you think the US army and MC have to buy prime-time slots in TV, hire a marketing team and spend millions of dollars to recruit people. It's all just commercial.
If there is a real reason for people to rise up in arms, you don't have to canvas people to join the armed forces. They just con people like you into signing up by saying they need you to 'defend the motherland'. Some truths are difficult to digest, this is one of those.