The Flying Triangle - Answers on Communism

The Flying Triangle - Answers on Communism

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25
Thank Tree22Thanks

This is a discussion on The Flying Triangle - Answers on Communism within the Critical Thinking & Philosophy forums, part of the Topics of Interest category; @ The Flying Triangle asked these questions to Marxists: His questions in black, answers in blue! Marxists: Hypothetical question Say ...

  1. #1

    The Flying Triangle - Answers on Communism

    @The Flying Triangle asked these questions to Marxists:
    His questions in black, answers in blue!

    Marxists: Hypothetical question

    Say that your utopia (or dystopia depending on perspective) is finally achieved.

    Q1: Would I have the option to go Bear Grylls, in the woods, fending for myself?


    First of all, you have radically confused the meanings of some words here. You presume incorrectly to equate Marxism with Utopianism. This is a very common and nonetheless completely false presumption.

    This is the definition (the only one) of the word Utopia: An imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.
    This is a definition (not the only one and a very biased one) of the word Communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

    The Communism I advocate for and aim at takes Marxism and makes it more well refined. Why and how I do this will be explained to some depth. Here is my definition of the Communist-derived society, essentially a Resource-Based-Economy (RBE) founded on Objective Moral Truth (OMT). I call this society the Morally-Founded Worldview (MFW)

    Morally Founded Worldview (MFW): A political theory derived from Communism and morality, advocating for a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person does whatever they want to do, nonetheless relying on that same society to provide for everyone’s needs and wants equally.

    So you can see my definition is even more frightening to you probably than the book definition for Communism and much closer to what right wingers or Capitalists suspect Communism is all about.


    So, back to your questions:
    Q1: Would I have the option to go Bear Grylls, in the woods, fending for myself?


    A1: Essentially, no. The reason why is simple, really. You are not nor were you ever a being in isolation. You are connected to others. You are at one with others, whether you avow this truth or not. Everything you do affects them. Everything they do affects you. Everything you and they do affects the environment (that which is not you or them). You cannot escape the collective consciousness. You never have and you never will.

    There is therefore no such thing as ‘fending for yourself’. If you carry one tiny shred of information from another person with you, you are merely delusional to think that you are fending for yourself. Your individuality delusion is noted. You are suffering a kind of insanity. It’s ok. Everyone has some insanity to some degree.

    Your mother, father, siblings and a veritable host of humanity and experiences in the world have taught you to be you. You are them and they are you. ‘Fending for yourself’ in other words is the same as being wholly dependent on everything that is. It is merely comical to suggest otherwise.

    Your thinking also seems to assume that at some age you are, for lack of a better term, released on your own recognizance. The you that is released is something separates from the world and is yet a part of some thing that released you. That something that released you is, in your mind, your parents, your society, your God, your country, whatever authority figures you believe in. You then think that your authority figures want something from you. They want … accomplishments. They want … adulthood. They want … success. But, NONE of this is true. The truth is that it’s you that wants any or all of these things, or not. The truth is that you have allocated authority onto entities that are not relevant. What you want is relevant … to you.

    It matters not what you wish to call the entity or situation that exerts moral authority via moral truth. You may call it God, but then there is confusion. The Christian God, or the Muslim God, or one or more of many Hindu Gods? There can be no confusion in truth. So, all of these made up by man authorities are not real. The only benchmark common to them is moral truth, or, the truths we approach as moral from any faith or belief system that aims at truth. All of these faiths sense and aim at something that we can intuit, we can feel, is solid, unmoving. That is the reason we are all tempted to speak with conviction on these matters. This is 3rd party consensus, again, the collective consciousness. You cannot escape it.

    It is this similar aiming, this trend towards wisdom, that causes me to assert that truth itself is objective, even moral truth, and that we live in a relatively stable universe because this is so. Over time, mankind is eking out, emerging, more and more moral truth, similar to mundane truths, or the knowledge of science. This is then, the real authority, Objective Moral Truth (OMT). This puts aside for the time being, until proof is found, any need for a deity. If there is a deity then that deity created this consensus and is obviously content to let conscience be our guide in coming into alignment with OMT.

    So, despite your delusions to the contrary, you cannot ‘fend for yourself’. It simply is not meaningfully possible, unless, you are saying that you yourself ARE everything. In that case we have justification to say something so otherwise completely obtuse. Perhaps, indeed, the entire metaverse is ‘fending for itself’. And you are indeed an inseparable part of it.

    Additionally, within a meaningfully moral system, mankind must live in balance with all other parts of the environment. This means that breeding stresses on the environment and ourselves are morally inadvisable. This means we can only breed responsibly as many people as can be kept in all their needs and wants sustainably by the existing production of humanity. These are merely facts on the ground. The management is possible, even if difficult. The task is ours, and denying it is shirking our responsibility, e.g. immoral.

    So, all of humanity must decide, for example, what percentage of the Earth to allow as wilderness unmanaged internally by mankind. This wilderness then must be deducted from the resource base used to calculate the sustainable population of humans and other life on the planet. So, by allowing for ANY wilderness we reduce our total human population. And that is probably morally correct to do so. The beauty and randomness of creation itself is allowed some inertia. We do not then have the immoral hubris to assume that all management of chance and all resources is something for human control, even on Earth.

    This is one level. Another level would be then that some humans wish to do as you have suggested. They wish to go-it-as-alone-as-they-can-knowing-what-they-know in this wilderness. But that is polluting the wilderness again. So, again, we have to cordon off some section of the world for experiments of this nature. Then, society can allow for some of its members to do this testing of the self thing. But even then there are limits that you probably would not like based on objective moral truth (OMT).

    You are and always will be an inseparable part of the metaverse. If you wish to separate from it you are insanely delusional and need help. But, you can wish to have time apart in a limited way, for some purposes. This can never allow you to separate and that wish would be moral poison. So, if in separating you strive to build a new society without moral foundation, you would have to be restrained. If you wish to test yourself until you die that is probably not ok. The reason for this is not that your failing to survive and dying is not ok, it is that everyone has the right to the excursion you are enjoying and you alone cannot take all the time or wilderness resources to do this. You can only ride the ride for your fair share of the time.

    Making sure that the population numbers of the planet are right for resources to be shared and happiness to be maintained, is not easy. But it would be probably very selfish of you to take a you-sized portion of the play wilderness for too extended of a stay. This would mean that ‘fending for yourself’ is really just another phrase for ‘Waaa waaaa, I want my way.’ It is the refusal to understand unity of a selfish child.


    Q2: Would I be left alone to my own devices?

    A2: Yes, for the limited time you were fairly allotted in the play Wilderness area. You could stipulate that you would accept death if that happened. You would probably also have safe words to call in the society you hated, that you left, if needed.

    Q3: What if a number of the population choose to opt out of your utopia?

    A3: Again, the word utopia here is misused. In Utopia everything is perfect. Only an insane person would opt out of perfection. But, we cannot achieve perfection and therefore it is feasible that someone would want to opt out. In such a case society had best be so broken that you can prevent it from restraining you leaving it. Such a society is certainly not a Utopia.

    Now, we go back to the question.

    A3(continued): What if one of your children chose to opt out of your family at age 3. You see, it is not a question of wisdom or readiness. It is ALWAYS true that this is immoral. You might say they are too young to choose, they do not understand. I agree. You are too unwise to choose, you do not understand. I CANNOT morally allow you to go. You will be restrained and made to stay within the moral society. A test yourself excursion into the play wilderness is fine though, even encouraged.

    Q4: What if we formed our own tribal nation?

    A4: The moral world, in unity, accepts all. It allows no separation. It realizes morally that separation is immoral.

    This DOES NOT deny free will. You are allowed free will. You can choose to do, and get away with immoral things. Society will try to discover them and to restrain you from doing them. Then you will be taught, as an unwise person, what is wise. There will always, in wisdom, be a path to free will, a path to the releasing of the restraints. Society trusts that wisdom and truth will prevail. You may spend your entire life on the insane and immoral pursuits of separation, and again and again convince us of your sincere return to sanity. The dance is acceptable.

    This DOES NOT deny connection. You are allowed to circulate in small groups with like minded folks and seek the purity of that smaller group. But the smaller groups are all monitored by the whole, and eventual free will outbreaks that are immoral in character will be restrained, even if it has to be the whole group. The collective consciousness must be carefully maintained.

    Selection of the decision-makers (Socrates and Plato’s Republic) is THE SINGLE most critical act of the society. Wisdom, like no other trait, is morally founded. Selection of the wise from amid the population is the greatest task for humanity past understanding wisdom itself in the first place.

    As shown, this IS NOT utopian. Use of that word makes it exceedingly clear you do not understand Communism.

    Separation is immoral. The wish to separate essentially permanently from others, any others, makes it clear you do not understand the wisdom of the unity principle. Ultimately, this means you are at-war with everything that is not defined by you as you. You are behaving as a devil in the finest sense of the word, Lucifer, corrupted by your own sense of ‘fending for yourself’, a delusion.
    Last edited by series0; 04-21-2017 at 12:45 AM.



  2. #2

    I don't know who this person was who asked you these questions, and frankly I don't really care. I'm not going to get into a long drawn out discussion with you about this because I've talked to you before about various things and it is like talking to a brick wall, no offense. But I thought I'll just add my own two cents here really quickly for anybody reading this.

    You prattle on and on about how Marxism isn't Utopian - for some reason you don't see the obvious connection! What I personally find the most amusing though is how you make no use of the word fascism. You don't seem to see at all how fascist it is for you (or whoever) to be telling everybody what they can and can't do, like they are three year old children and you (or they) are all so brilliant and wise that you (or they) can and should decide what is best for everybody like you (or they) are our daddy.

    If you are as open-minded as you no doubt consider yourself to be, here are a few things for you to consider. No need to reply to them because I won't get back to you, but just consider them for yourself...
    1) Why are you so drawn to an authoritarian philosophy where you (or somebody else) gets to boss everybody around?
    2) What makes you think that if this philosophy were implemented that YOU would be one of the elite few doing the bossing around, rather than being one of the masses being bossed around and told what to do?
    3) What is society but a collection of individuals? And how is it moral or rational for a small group of people to tyrannize another group of people, because they claim to be working on the behalf of an even larger group?
    4) With this type of thinking, is it really any surprise that communist nations inevitably ALWAYS become dictatorships that lead to massive horrors for the people that live there?
    5) What makes you think that your own special communism would be ANY different, in practice, than all of the other countless "special versions" of communism that have existed?

    Just some things to think about.

  3. #3

    Quote Originally Posted by series0 View Post
    Flying Triangle asked these questions to Marxists:
    His questions in black, answers in blue!

    Marxists: Hypothetical question

    Say that your utopia (or dystopia depending on perspective) is finally achieved.

    Q1: Would I have the option to go Bear Grylls, in the woods, fending for myself?


    First of all, you have radically confused the meanings of some words here. You presume incorrectly to equate Marxism with Utopianism. This is a very common and nonetheless completely false presumption.
    "Marxist utopia"

    This is the definition (the only one) of the word Utopia: An imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.
    This is a definition (not the only one and a very biased one) of the word Communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
    Yes, go on..

    The Communism I advocate for and aim at takes Marxism and makes it more well refined. Why and how I do this will be explained to some depth. Here is my definition of the Communist-derived society, essentially a Resource-Based-Economy (RBE) founded on Objective Moral Truth (OMT). I call this society the Morally-Founded Worldview (MFW)
    "Revisionist Marxism" with a different name.

    Morally Founded Worldview (MFW): A political theory derived from Communism and morality, advocating for a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person does whatever they want to do, nonetheless relying on that same society to provide for everyone’s needs and wants equally.
    nvm. Sounds like you've developed your own political theory. You're answering my questions not as a Marxist, then.

    Dishonorable. Even so..

    So you can see my definition is even more frightening to you probably than the book definition for Communism and much closer to what right wingers or Capitalists suspect Communism is all about.
    Depends on what you mean by "all property is publicly owned."


    Q1: Would I have the option to go Bear Grylls, in the woods, fending for myself?

    Essentially, no. The reason why is simple, really. You are not nor were you ever a being in isolation. You are connected to others. You are at one with others, whether you avow this truth or not. Everything you do affects them. Everything they do affects you. Everything you and they do affects the environment (that which is not you or them). You cannot escape the collective consciousness. You never have and you never will.
    Sounds like an introverts nightmare, and you sound like the Borg. But, I have to keep reminding myself that objects tend to look pretty on paper, especially Big Macs. The real life version is never as pretty. Right off the bat, your MFT sounds a bit Borg-y. I wonder how ugly the real life version would be?

    There is therefore no such thing as ‘fending for yourself’. If you carry one tiny shred of information from another person with you, you are merely delusional to think that you are fending for yourself. Your individuality delusion is noted. You are suffering a kind of insanity. It’s ok. Everyone has some insanity to some degree.
    Ah, the "teach a man to fish" thing. You're correct. The meaning of that parable is that independence is fostered through instruction, i.e. information.

    Your mother, father, siblings and a veritable host of humanity and experiences in the world have taught you to be you. You are them and they are you. ‘Fending for yourself’ in other words is the same as being
    wholly dependent on everything that is
    . It is merely comical to suggest otherwise.
    Which part of this is dependent on the collective? Are deer part of that collective?



    Your thinking also seems to assume that at some age you are, for lack of a better term, released on your own recognizance. The you that is released is something separates from the world and is yet a part of some thing that released you. That something that released you is, in your mind, your parents, your society, your God, your country, whatever authority figures you believe in. You then think that your authority figures want something from you. They want … accomplishments. They want … adulthood. They want … success. But, NONE of this is true. The truth is that it’s you that wants any or all of these things, or not. The truth is that you have allocated authority onto entities that are not relevant. What you want is relevant … to you.
    What I want is to be left alone.

    It matters not what you wish to call the entity or situation that exerts moral authority via moral truth. You may call it God, but then there is confusion. The Christian God, or the Muslim God, or one or more of many Hindu Gods? There can be no confusion in truth. So, all of these made up by man authorities are not real. The only benchmark common to them is moral truth, or, the truths we approach as moral from any faith or belief system that aims at truth. All of these faiths sense and aim at something that we can intuit, we can feel, is solid, unmoving. That is the reason we are all tempted to speak with conviction on these matters. This is 3rd party consensus, again, the collective consciousness. You cannot escape it.
    Collective Consciousness… This is your God?

    It is this similar aiming, this trend towards wisdom, that causes me to assert that truth itself is objective, even moral truth, and that we live in a relatively stable universe because this is so. Over time, mankind is eking out, emerging, more and more moral truth, similar to mundane truths, or the knowledge of science. This is then, the real authority, Objective Moral Truth (OMT). This puts aside for the time being, until proof is found, any need for a deity. If there is a deity then that deity created this consensus and is obviously content to let conscience be our guide in coming into alignment with OMT.
    Got any examples of new moral truths mankind eked out in recent history?

    So, despite your delusions to the contrary, you cannot ‘fend for yourself’. It simply is not meaningfully possible, unless, you are saying that you yourself ARE everything. In that case we have justification to say something so otherwise completely obtuse. Perhaps, indeed, the entire metaverse is ‘fending for itself’. And you are indeed an inseparable part of it.
    (You keep saying "delusions" as if to hide)

    "..you cannot 'fend for yourself'."

    Speak for yourself.

    Don't tread on me. How bow dah?

    Additionally, within a meaningfully moral system, mankind must live in balance with all other parts of the environment. This means that breeding stresses on the environment and ourselves are morally inadvisable. This means we can only breed responsibly as many people as can be kept in all their needs and wants sustainably by the existing production of humanity. These are merely facts on the ground. The management is possible, even if difficult. The task is ours, and denying it is shirking our responsibility, e.g. immoral.
    "One-Child Policy" - check. Actually, I only have one child and plan on keeping it that way, for now.

    So, all of humanity must decide, for example, what percentage of the Earth to allow as wilderness unmanaged internally by mankind. This wilderness then must be deducted from the resource base used to calculate the sustainable population of humans and other life on the planet. So, by allowing for ANY wilderness we reduce our total human population. And that is probably morally correct to do so. The beauty and randomness of creation itself is allowed some inertia. We do not then have the immoral hubris to assume that all management of chance and all resources is something for human control, even on Earth.
    I thought hippies liked wilderness? All kidding aside, in order to 'allow' wilderness "we have to reduce/cull a percentage of the population" is what you mean?

    This is one level. Another level would be then that some humans wish to do as you have suggested. They wish to go-it-as-alone-as-they-can-knowing-what-they-know in this wilderness. But that is polluting the wilderness again. So, again, we have to cordon off some section of the world for experiments of this nature. Then, society can allow for some of its members to do this testing of the self thing. But even then there are limits that you probably would not like based on objective moral truth (OMT).
    Define polluting.

    Were the tribes of Natives polluting?

    You are and always will be an inseparable part of the metaverse. If you wish to separate from it you are insanely delusional and need help. But, you can wish to have time apart in a limited way, for some purposes. This can never allow you to separate and that wish would be moral poison. So, if in separating you strive to build a new society without moral foundation, you would have to be restrained. If you wish to test yourself until you die that is probably not ok. The reason for this is not that your failing to survive and dying is not ok, it is that everyone has the right to the excursion you are enjoying and you alone cannot take all the time or wilderness resources to do this. You can only ride the ride for your fair share of the time.
    Careful going down that road. This new religion of yours sounds similar to past versions.

    Making sure that the population numbers of the planet are right for resources to be shared and happiness to be maintained, is not easy. But it would be probably very selfish of you to take a you-sized portion of the play wilderness for too extended of a stay. This would mean that ‘fending for yourself’ is really just another phrase for ‘Waaa waaaa, I want my way.’ It is the refusal to understand unity of a selfish child.
    I can't speak to the motivations of others who want to go their own way. Rejection of your MFT may involve the temperament of the individual. Unless you want to cull the K-selected from the population or at least limit their movements. (I'm starting to understand your motivations)

    Q2: Would I be left alone to my own devices?

    A2: Yes, for the limited time you were fairly allotted in the play Wilderness area. You could stipulate that you would accept death if that happened. You would probably also have safe words to call in the society you hated, that you left, if needed.
    Excellent.

    Q3: What if a number of the population choose to opt out of your utopia?

    A3: Again, the word utopia here is misused. In Utopia everything is perfect. Only an insane person would opt out of perfection. But, we cannot achieve perfection and therefore it is feasible that someone would want to opt out. In such a case society had best be so broken that you can prevent it from restraining you leaving it. Such a society is certainly not a Utopia.
    Since you like definitions, I thought this video was interesting regarding the history of the word: Utopia. Just as an aside. Apologies for not specifying that I use "utopia" in a sarcastic manner.



    Will YOU be the one doing the restraining? Any fair play? Mono-y-mono?

    I doubt it.

    A3(continued): What if one of your children chose to opt out of your family at age 3. You see, it is not a question of wisdom or readiness. It is ALWAYS true that this is immoral. You might say they are too young to choose, they do not understand. I agree. You are too unwise to choose, you do not understand. I CANNOT morally allow you to go. You will be restrained and made to stay within the moral society. A test yourself excursion into the play wilderness is fine though, even encouraged.
    The difference between you and my family is vast. In my family, I see the traditional markers of genetic health. Yet, you're not my family.

    And while this "Collective Conscious" is a nice LSD trip to think about, the fact is you can't socialize our evolution to dispose of our tribal origins.

    Prohibition/restraint, do they work?

    Q4: What if we formed our own tribal nation?
    A4: The moral world, in unity, accepts all. It allows no separation. It realizes morally that separation is immoral.
    Depends on what you're separating from, and what your temperament is. If your temperament is passive, as opposed aggressive, we're all different. We all fall somewhere along the scale. Some closer to one end or the other.

    Like I said, it sounds good in theory.

    This DOES NOT deny free will. You are allowed free will. You can choose to do, and get away with immoral things. Society will try to discover them and to restrain you from doing them. Then you will be taught, as an unwise person, what is wise. There will always, in wisdom, be a path to free will, a path to the releasing of the restraints. Society trusts that wisdom and truth will prevail. You may spend your entire life on the insane and immoral pursuits of separation, and again and again convince us of your sincere return to sanity. The dance is acceptable.
    I assume "wise" is a characteristic you arbitrarily apply to your ideas only.

    Real wisdom withstood the test of time. Your ideology hasn't. It's only words on paper at this point, but I find in it the theoretical words of a novice.

    This DOES NOT deny connection. You are allowed to circulate in small groups with like minded folks and seek the purity of that smaller group. But the smaller groups are all monitored by the whole, and eventual free will outbreaks that are immoral in character will be restrained, even if it has to be the whole group. The collective consciousness must be carefully maintained.
    Uh-huh.

    I must reiterate, will YOU be the one monitoring, restraining, maintaining?

    You claim all these things that would happen, but they're never things you would or could do on your own.

    Would you describe yourself as "self-sufficient?"

    Selection of the decision-makers (Socrates and Plato’s Republic) is THE SINGLE most critical act of the society. Wisdom, like no other trait, is morally founded. Selection of the wise from amid the population is the greatest task for humanity past understanding wisdom itself in the first place.
    You seem to be reaching for wisdom. Do you believe that you have it? Is it wise to believe you are wise?

    If others are saying you are wise, it must be so. If you have to proclaim your wisdom, well...

    As shown, this IS NOT utopian. Use of that word makes it exceedingly clear you do not understand Communism.
    Utopia/Dystopia, same thing. Different perspectives.

    Is Communism the same as Marxism? Sort of like the relation between Consumerism and Captialism?

    Separation is immoral. The wish to separate essentially permanently from others, any others, makes it clear you do not understand the wisdom of the unity principle. Ultimately, this means you are at-war with everything that is not defined by you as you. You are behaving as a devil in the finest sense of the word, Lucifer, corrupted by your own sense of ‘fending for yourself’, a delusion.
    Uh-huh. Your circuits are the complete opposite of mine.

    Explain this Wisdom of the Unity principle. Is it new, is it old? Did you invent it?

    Wanting freedom is evil?

    You did more to dissuade me from your counterfeit Marxism. Were you trying to convince me of it at all?

    And if you weren't trying to convince me, will you use your wise-metric to decide who to cull/send to re-education "institutions"?

    Are you good at being a Man?
    Last edited by Flying Triangle; 04-21-2017 at 01:31 PM.
    Tamehagane and Whatevs thanked this post.

  4. #4

    There's actually very little point in discussing the details of a communist society because it's mostly up to speculation. The only thing anyone can say is that it would be radically different from capitalism. All classes, the state, money, commodity production, wage labour, and the law of value would be abolished.

    Marx thought of communism as a movement and not a society.

    "Communism is for us not a state of affairs to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself to. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence"
    Last edited by TheSonderer; 04-21-2017 at 11:45 AM.
    Paulie, series0 and Convex thanked this post.

  5. #5

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSonderer View Post
    There's actually very little point in discussing the details of a communist society because it's mostly up to speculation. The only thing anyone can say is that it would be radically different from capitalism. All classes, the state, money, commodity production, wage labour, and the law of value would be abolished.

    Marx thought of communism as a movement and not a society.

    "Communism is for us not a state of affairs to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself to. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence"
    The materialist method, a "ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be." (Marx's letter to Ruge, 1843)
    TheSonderer and series0 thanked this post.

  6. #6

    I don't care whether it's not perfect, as long as it ends this insane greed and corruption in the world. I simply want money to stop being a religion people start acting more humane.
    series0 thanked this post.

  7. #7

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSonderer View Post
    All classes, the state, money, commodity production, wage labour, and the law of value would be abolished.
    What about markets?

    Even in totalitarian regimes with rigid social and economic controls black markets still spontaneously spring into existence because people want to be able to buy and sell things (including labor) at prices they themselves set and which they deem fair.

  8. #8

    Quote Originally Posted by Haba Aba Daba Aba View Post
    What about markets?

    Even in totalitarian regimes with rigid social and economic controls black markets still spontaneously spring into existence because people want to be able to buy and sell things (including labor) at prices they themselves set and which they deem fair.
    There wouldn't be markets because markets are a medium of buying and selling commodities. A big component of capitalism is that it involves the commodity form as a way of regulating social relations between people. In other words, if there are markets (whether they are black markets or "free" markets) then it's not communist.

  9. #9

    Quote Originally Posted by Haba Aba Daba Aba View Post
    What about markets?

    Even in totalitarian regimes with rigid social and economic controls black markets still spontaneously spring into existence because people want to be able to buy and sell things (including labor) at prices they themselves set and which they deem fair.
    We have laws against some immoral behaviors. The trouble is, that out of some foolish belief that it is necessary, people continue to allow greed and ownership legally. It IS NOT necessary. It IS clearly immoral. Most religions do no dispute this wisdom, so, @Flying Triangle is disingenuous to proclaim at least that aspect of wisdom as my 'new' wisdom. Further I will add that truth exists and has always existed. Our understanding of it, our emergent knowledge is what is 'new'. The wisdom I offer may seem new to some people, and other have been proclaiming it for thousands of years.

    We outlaw unnecessary violence. We must outlaw unnecessary greed including unnecessary ownership. The rank evil done, the amazing amount of evil done, as this process of Capitalism plays out is hideous and insane.

    ---

    Many people that post in this thread and on this topic in general ask evil question like these:

    1) Can I go elsewhere and be evil, is that ok with you?
    2) At what age do you grow up and realize evil is ok?
    3) If we take away evil, people will just reform evil, they always have, so shouldn't we stop trying?

    Your question is of the third form. @The Flying Triangle's question is of the first.

    No, just no. Wisely, we make evil behavior difficult and unsupported within our new system, not, as it is now, encouraged and supported systemically. We encourage people to be greedy, to hoard wealth. We even look up to them. It is so obviously immoral.

    To me the analogy is simple. The above three questions could be stated like this:

    1) Can I found my own country or planet and re-establish 'free' markets where greed is ok?
    2) Sharing within the family is required, but, when you grow up and face other adults in the 'free' range, is predation of them monetarily ok?
    3) If we take away the 'free' ,market people will set up black markets, ... is that ok?

    No, no, no. Immoral is immoral. It is NOT relative. It is objective. Humanity can and will decide that this IS wisdom. They will progress, they will grow, and drag the unaware and the unwise kicking and screaming if need be, with them.

    Communism addresses each of these issue morally, and it is just one of the many silly jokes within history that Marx and atheism remain so connected. The people, often the right wing, delusionally worry that Marxism and atheism aim at immorality. They do not have to. The current left wing IS IN ERROR often enough with self-indulgent immorality associated with the left wing policies, many pseudo-Marxist or Marxist-derived.

    My wisdom, my path, my vision, MFW, combines Marxist truth and moral truth into a new ACTUAL synthesis. The missing moral element with Marxism, so repugnant to the morality-fearing relativists on the academic left, must be re-integrated to make that new derived Marxism wise.

    People saying, 'It will not work, people are people.' are being ridiculous. Just like many that said to the first lawmakers,you cant enforce this code on everyone; or the people who said of the airplane 'God never intended man to fly.' - You are simply wrong and will be proven wrong over time. The failed attempts at Communism in history are just showing us how not to implement it, not that it itself is unworthy of implementation.

  10. #10

    Quote Originally Posted by Whatevs View Post
    I don't know who this person was who asked you these questions, and frankly I don't really care. I'm not going to get into a long drawn out discussion with you about this because I've talked to you before about various things and it is like talking to a brick wall, no offense.
    None taken. I am solidly believing what I write about. I have done MUCH thinking and reading on the matter. It is not a gut reaction but a well arrived at truism/theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whatevs View Post
    But I thought I'll just add my own two cents here really quickly for anybody reading this.

    You prattle on and on about how Marxism isn't Utopian - for some reason you don't see the obvious connection!
    That is because:
    1) I am not prattling.
    2) There is little connection at all.
    3) People (like you) keep thinking that 2 is wrong. So I have to keep stating the truth and showing how it is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whatevs View Post
    What I personally find the most amusing though is how you make no use of the word fascism. You don't seem to see at all how fascist it is for you (or whoever) to be telling everybody what they can and can't do, like they are three year old children and you (or they) are all so brilliant and wise that you (or they) can and should decide what is best for everybody like you (or they) are our daddy.
    I AM trying to teach. A teacher sounds condescending or takes the position of authority on the matter. But there is a tacit truth within real teaching that musings and challenges are allowed and I am happy to field those as I am here. I have done thousands of hours of reading and thought on these issues and arrived at a philosophy I intend to broadcast. I agree with the possible assertion that length of time doing something is no indicator of certainty or correctness. Yet, even amid healthy skepticism I still have found no truly worthy counter arguments to my approach.

    Indeed, Fascism and Communism are sort of the order and chaos endpoints on one spectrum and that spectrum is a circle that means the ends are actually adjacent in practice.

    Often the right wing or pragmatists or enneatype 6 virtue leaning folks, adhere to the connection theme. They seem to be a subset glue factor within society mostly saying things that amount to 'Yay for our team!' This leaning to connection actually becomes insular and ultimately, immorally, denies connection, because it is taken too far. This IS the fascist root, the tendency to order, the denial of the use and moral use specifically of chaos.

    What is more wholesome than these familiar entities, family, country and religion. They are teams. They are divisive. Granted they serve a connecting purpose. But you scoff at me for offering the same things they do. Authority and order. You charge me with Fascism. Every family, country, or religious hierarchy HAS an authority and that is ... Fascism ... according to you. How many fathers say, 'Do this becuase it is right.' How many religions say, 'This is the true path.' How many nations say, 'Our system is the (best)(most free).' NONE, repeat NONE of that matters. Fascism, or more to the point, ORDER, is required and very healthy doses of it. So be it.

    So, yes, in maintaining a belief in possession of true wisdom, it is incumbent upon the wise to teach and enforce wisdom upon the world. This DOES NOT preclude a great and wise degree of freedom within this process and, again, the vigilance of the WHOLE (not sub teams) in making sure that each sub team (religion, country, family) complies with wisdom vetted and agreed upon by the WHOLE. The WHOLE is best established with wisdom, ie the wise as members ONLY. I am indeed referring to a wise elite, the best possible elite. This is the vision offered in so many words thousands of years ago in Plato's Republic, stemming from the discipline and vision of Socrates.

    Within the family, children and within the religion, the flock DO NOT set policy. They DO NOT make authoritarian decisions. They CAN AND DO have input in wise relationships. But the final say, WHAT WE ALL DO, LIKE IT OR NOT, is an edict from authority. It ONLY remains to be as wise as possible (and the use of that word, 'wise', shows you the type of people o be chosen) to choose the best possible people as authorities (decision-makers). Is that Fascism? If so, then SOME Fascism is required to be wise and people that do not realize this are NOT BEING WISE. But we must balance the order with chaos.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whatevs View Post
    If you are as open-minded as you no doubt consider yourself to be, here are a few things for you to consider. No need to reply to them because I won't get back to you, but just consider them for yourself...
    The request not to respond is always a disingenuous attempt to pre-squelch the other side's position. It is also extremely indicative of a desire to remove oneself from the stage after a performance, the sneaking suspicion being that tomatoes are in the air, and justly so. Participation is your choice. Own it, or do not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whatevs View Post
    1) Why are you so drawn to an authoritarian philosophy where you (or somebody else) gets to boss everybody around?
    See the very clear above explanation and realize that chaos must be balanced within the system also. The authority you seem to fear is required.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whatevs View Post
    2) What makes you think that if this philosophy were implemented that YOU would be one of the elite few doing the bossing around, rather than being one of the masses being bossed around and told what to do?
    I ask you this, as I have many others, 'When Kobe Bryant makes a slam dunk, what level of understanding is required to have members of the audience revel and accept this beauty in achievement?' The answer is .. .very little. The act of the achievement inspires almost no fear. But this is not true at all of intelligence and even less so of true wisdom (that which denies common sense). These action inspire fear and doubt in others. There is no applause for the amazing achievement. Instead the audience feels lessened or fearful or resentful (angry) at the suggestion that such 'perfection' or the desire to attain this achievement should be a burden they must face. In the particular case of wisdom this is MOST prevalent. No one, repeat, no one, wants to face their demons squarely, except the finally wise. There is tipping point in wisdom. That the point at which one actively and happily faces their demons, each of them in turn. The 'turning away' from that battle, from those battles, is a sure sign of a lack of some sort of wisdom.

    I am personally invested in this effort. I am writing a book on it. The research is ... epic. Yet and still, in humility, I can only say that I hope people see that what I am offering is indeed wisdom. Those which, in the past, I have accounted as wise myself, almost universally do accept my appraoch to wisdom as wise. That is consensus enough for me, despite the insular confirmation bias. One must step forward in faith. Certainty is elusive.

    The few doubters I respect are issues I cheerfully face, constructive criticism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whatevs View Post
    3) What is society but a collection of individuals? And how is it moral or rational for a small group of people to tyrannize another group of people, because they claim to be working on the behalf of an even larger group?
    It is rational and advisable, precisely because there simply is NO alternative. As chaos increases, and technology and population increase chaos, even awareness increases it, more and more order is required to balance it. This is a fundamental and wise truth. It is actually quite obvious and tedious of people to deny. The more explosive the fuel you put in the machine of humanity (eg chaos), the more heavily and well constructed the engine must be to fire it. Deal with it!

    Quote Originally Posted by Whatevs View Post
    4) With this type of thinking, is it really any surprise that communist nations inevitably ALWAYS become dictatorships that lead to massive horrors for the people that live there?
    Again, here is the tiresome contention that simply because every airplane up until now has crashed and even killed its inventors, that we should stop trying to fly. This is immoral cowardice, and nothing more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whatevs View Post
    5) What makes you think that your own special communism would be ANY different, in practice, than all of the other countless "special versions" of communism that have existed?
    The answers to this have been given. But I will repeat them.

    Morality is properly mixed with Marxism in my approach. That is the WHOLE answer. The detail within that answer is something that requires volumes of text. The commitment is really ONLY to morality. Capitalism is immorally founded. Communism, much less so. It really is that simple. For all the reasons already stated.


     
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Communism
    By PaladinX in forum Critical Thinking & Philosophy
    Replies: 190
    Last Post: 08-21-2015, 10:34 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-09-2012, 06:11 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:56 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0