Post #32,197
3/14/02 2:28:21 PM
|
Communism as a classical theory
Hey mm the thread was getting a tad right shifted so.
Communism was tried in 1917 Russia when the Trtsky Socialist Government was toppled by the comintern. It ended with Lenins death while ailing greatly from 1917.
It was tried by Mao during the long march during WW2 and ended in 1964 the cultural revolution.
2 examples, more available but once the initial rise of the underclass, people being human start dividing up the dumplings, that is why it cannot work.
thanx,
bill
There is no difference between a "settler," "soldier," "secular," or "Chassidic Jew." The target is the JEW.
\ufffd Harvey Tannenbaum
|
Post #32,216
3/14/02 3:48:29 PM
|
Think we've been through the battle of words
about 'communism'. I don't believe "it counts" for there to have been (if there really Was) a 'trial' of a few years.. which naturally morphed into prevailing habits of centuries. As.. it would!
Whatever the merits of the idea - all theoretical and all - I'd assert simply that, for any such vastly new way of viewing the world and our place in it, to ever "succeed":
We'd be talking about a later, less-adolescent / ie more advanced homo-sap; one which has learned from and about the poverty of the ideal of owning lots of stuff: as a measure of personal, social 'worth-whileness'. It is the infantile ego which never can envision another way to live a life, for it has no concept of.. Enough !!. None at all. Billy et al are the daily proof.
Meanwhile - isn't it about clear that, under present mindsets: neither this Utopia nor any other yet conjured up by active minds: fits with our current stage of er "evolution"?
(Your examples are about fucking with language - these were both nearer fascist top-down control than.. any genuine non-cynical epiphany throughout an entire society). QED?
My 3 Kopeks
Ashton
|
Post #32,223
3/14/02 4:33:20 PM
|
not in the beginning, it was a sincere attempt
to implement a new political structure, my only point is that such structures are quickly exploited by selfish interests. Wether a new political system or a religion. Jesus hijacked by Paul, Smith hijacked by Young, Hubbard hijacked by his old lady etc.
thanx,
bill
There is no difference between a "settler," "soldier," "secular," or "Chassidic Jew." The target is the JEW.
\ufffd Harvey Tannenbaum
|
Post #32,230
3/14/02 4:47:30 PM
|
All true - such as, currently we are. We might become more.
|
Post #32,310
3/15/02 9:25:46 AM
|
I was nearly beaten for saying that once.
>> We'd be talking about a later, less-adolescent / ie more advanced homo-sap;
Of course, I was thinking even less clearly than I usually do having spent a few hours with friends at a pub in rural North Carolina. And, I was quite a bit younger then (a freshman at the time iirc). A similar discussion about the "trying of communism" came up and, (I shouldn't be writing this, it's embarrassing, but funny still - imo), I was arguing that a legitimate attempt had never been made because of the reason you gave above (although I didn't state the reason so eloquently). That escalated the argument and I was being "out-louded" by two of the participants. I took off my shoe and banged it down on the bar yelling, "Jesus Christ was the only true communist that ever lived."
The very crowded bar grew instantly silent and I became the center of attention. Fortunately, my mates pulled me out of there before any bloodshed could occur.
It's always fascinated me that humans have the greatest sense of community when they are born. Once they hear enough to learn to talk, the sense of community starts to disappear. Or, as Barrie said, "Two is the beginning of the end."
I remember having to put my oldest into childcare when she was 4. I distinctly remember my shock when she referred to something as "my's". Now, she was an articulate little thing when she was 2 (honest, I have video evidence ;), but we had not taught her the words "my, mine, yours, etc." That was intentional as I knew that she would learn those words fast enough from her fellow Muricans and it only took a week for her to learn them at a daycare center.
We teach them not to be communists. Is it any wonder that after all that schooling a true communist state seems out of reach?
|
Post #32,314
3/15/02 9:48:00 AM
|
Its not about schooling.
Its about human nature.
The problem with true communist theory is that it ignores one of the uglier aspects of human nature...hence Ash's "more enlightened homo-sap".
The "I want more than you" aspect of humanity is not an American trait...its as old as civilization. Communist theory requires that you ignore the desires of self for the good of the community. It requires that you do not want to be better off than everyone else.
Jesus may indeed have been the first true communist...and you saw where it got him with the rest of humanity.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #32,341
3/15/02 12:46:01 PM
3/15/02 12:48:27 PM
|
It's not human nature.
Give a 1 year-old a ball. He plays with it, then hands it back to you. Of course, he wants it back because he knows innately what is important: sharing.
Virtually all toddlers I've seen or read about exhibit this behavior.
UNTIL they hear mommy and daddy say, "Don't go in there! That's OUR room. You stay in YOUR room; Don't touch that! That's your brother's! You play with YOUR toys,", etc.
The seeds of the concept of private ownership and (gack!) its "inherent value" are sown very early in the human existence.
Edited by mmoffitt
March 15, 2002, 12:48:27 PM EST
|
Post #32,367
3/15/02 2:52:41 PM
|
Um...ok.
No kids of your own, eh? ;-)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #32,528
3/17/02 6:58:05 PM
3/17/02 6:59:44 PM
|
Two, actually. And I fear I've done them a disservice.
To the best of my ability, I've taught them to be good citizens - which is something their fellow Murican, flag-waving, Ashcroft heeding, goose-stepping spawn of the Reagan youth will detest and exploit.
Edited by mmoffitt
March 17, 2002, 06:59:44 PM EST
|
Post #32,403
3/15/02 6:08:48 PM
|
A false idea of 'natural' IMhO. Common____but false.
It may indeed mean - giving up a prevailing notion of ~ I/Me against the world, and in a zero-sum game: desiring to 'own' as much as there is, no matter if it comes from You or Many or even: All the Rest..
Even in USSR (as moffitt would be the more competent judge) - the usual ego strokes went to superior performers, whether Aces in the military or doctors able to extract a pineal gland through the nose. After all, superior personal performance *indeed* adds to the society's performance. But at about that point.. the conditioning of which you speak - entered into a quite uncommunal distribution of Good goods, apparatchiks and all the rest now common knowledge. That-all was *nothing to do* with communism; a REAL Red-Herring, that!
Trying to write a New Rx to replace the above focus of infantile-ego which you deem 'natural' - ever fails, for reasons mentioned before: we aren't even grown-up enough to understand "'sharing' of a toy" let alone a planet. It is a Western religious (and religion-inspired) notion that you present as virtually genetic and immutable. I demur.
Small experiments all along, demonstrate to my satisfaction that - it is merely a mindset of long habit, reinforced precisely as Mike's little nursery story eloquently illustrates to a T.
Ashton
PS and related: no wonder! 'Christianity' is ever given lip-service by the multitudes, yet practised only by infinitesimal numbers (and quietly) who might have understood.. what it was that Jesus was preaching. Marx said starkly the function of That kind of 'religion'... Result:
The truth shall make you free..
But first.. it will piss you off.
Gloria Steinem
|
Post #32,527
3/17/02 6:55:48 PM
|
The most difficult idea from Marx for me to understand.
"Religion is the opiate of the people."
When I was much younger (a teenager) and had the typical myopic Western view that religion=Christianity, I struggled with this for a long time. From what I knew of Marx and what I knew of Christianity, I could not understand Marx's quasi-hatred of religion. For me, what Christ said and what Marx said were much easier to reconcile than what Christ said and what Western (particularly Murican) capitalism said.
What I came up with then, and as of yet I have no better explanation, is that Christians are good to their fellow man in order to be rewarded after death. Even if one follows what Christ said, the motivation for being a good member of society remains self-interest. This is appauling to the true communist. I realize now that this is not the sole reason for the above famous observation, but I remain convinced that it is morally reprehensible to be a good member of society only because of some promised future gain for one's self.
As usual, you are dead-on about the corruption of the idea of a communist state in the CCCP. I've often wondered how things might have worked out had Trotsky, instead of Stalin, ascended to power.
|
Post #32,589
3/18/02 12:25:12 PM
|
Opiate of the people
This statement voices the obvious from a geopolitikal prospective. The religion as practiced in Eaurope and the Russia pre 1917 was a state sponsored religion that with pagentry and drama allowed the little folk to let off steam. I am not taking anything away from a "true believer" but speaking from an organizational standpoint. Upheavals and wars were tempered by the messages from the pulpit which allowed acceptance of pain and suffering much like taking opium does. I dont think he spoke of it hatefully, just recognising a fact on the ground.
thanx,
bill
The Bill of Rights, Void where ptohibited.
|
Post #32,687
3/18/02 11:56:17 PM
|
Was Marx a Just Say No devotee?
The usual understanding of the quote assumes that Marx considered opiates a bad thing. I don't know whether he did or not. In any case, tame religion does pretty much the same things to a population that opiates do to organisms.
* the word "tame" is a reference to Narnia, as in "not a tame lion".
----
United we stand
Divided we dominate the planet without really trying
|
Post #32,675
3/18/02 8:29:11 PM
|
Yes, that aspect of Christianity (as most often practised) -
is well noticed by most everyone in the world - except Christians. It is then (after it's mentioned) fashionable to become all defensive about an imagined criticism of 'Jesus' - it couldn't possibly be a criticism of the poverty of comprehension of His followers, now could it?
The Kingdom of God is all around you, yet you will not see it -- was the quote (from Timothy? IIRC) - in one of Jos. Campbell's talks with Bill Moyers. The 'esoteric wing' of Christianity 'gets it' similarly to all the much older religions' esoteric wings. The common folk are in it for What's In It for Me\ufffd [now and later].
And it is the common folk who are, by def'n, 'that infamous LCD' - those who love being Righteous and sanctimonious; preferably backed by Large Weapons. As in March 2002: as The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists' clock was recently moved up to
5 Minutes Before Midnight.
deja vu... deja vu... Are all the Original thinkers now dead, to be found only in textbooks?
Ashton
|
Post #32,320
3/15/02 10:43:40 AM
|
ROFL!
True saying but baaaad location. The Matador lounge Anchorage AK 1983 or so, serious western bar. With a friend that in a lull in the noise shouts only fags wear cowboy hats. RIP Kent,
thanx,
bill
There is no difference between a "settler," "soldier," "secular," or "Chassidic Jew." The target is the JEW.
\ufffd Harvey Tannenbaum
|
Post #33,013
3/21/02 1:01:55 PM
|
Re: Communism as a classical theory
In the United States, Marxist communism is presented as all property in the hands of the state. This was not communism according to Marx, he saw the state as only serving the interests of an over class and thought it should be dissolved. In fact, Soviet leaders paid lip service to this idea until Khruschev.
Marx advocated that the state be turned into the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat before it was dissolved. The anarchist Bakunin criticized this idea as he didn't believe that the red bureaucrats would give up their power, he and the anarchist's didn't believe in taking over the state but dissolving the state. A popular anarchist conception of the ideal society is that power would rest in local, directly democratic workers councils who would be in confederation with other worker's councils. One should remember that this is largely how the Russian revolution happened - local worker's councils (Soviets) did most of the leg work. Then the Bolshevik party seized state power and stripped the Soviets of most of their power.
Leftist criticism of religion is not the same as criticism of Christ. Churches focus on certain aspects of Christianity - when I see the religious right on television, they are usually decrying the separation of church and state or homosexuals, how often do they focus on Jesus overturning the money changers tables in the temple or saying it's harder for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man into heaven? Some Christian traits are criticized - they say that the idea that people can suffer in this life and be rewarded in "the next life" prevents people from the arduous task of fixing things in this life. One really has to know more than just a short quote to get the context of what they're saying. Perhaps the best semi-modern book on how authoritarian religions and other authoritarian institutions affect people negatively can be found in a book by a student of Freud, Wilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism. It's a book about why a large percentage of the German people embraced fascism, something Reich witnessed first-hand in the early 1930's. For more understanding of Marx's view on religion, here's the context of his opium quote -
"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."
|
