I'm a Neo Communist?

[Elmer Gantry]

When did communism ever benfit the many? I'm sorry but I think most people read the Communist Manifesto and go straight to the love, peace and mung beans chapter and completely ignore the totalitarianist attitude that the ruling party has to adopt in order for a transition to communism.

10 Conditions For Transition To Communism
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Communism or Neo-communism or whatever-the-fuck Mr Zeitgeist was on about in the second half of addendum are not my idea of freedom and liberty. They all preach the old "the government knows better than you" mantra. I'll be one of the ones that Peter Joseph is hauling off to re education camp in that version of the future.

 

[javyn]

Have any of you actually read Marx and Engels? For the record, I'm opposed to it as well, but the sheer level of ignorance as to what Communism even is is staggering.

FYI: More requisites necessary for the transition to communism:

1. Emergence of a free, unfettered, global market. Reason, Marx believed the free market was the most progressive institution of all, and would eradicate all remnants leftover from feudalism. A global free market would also raise technological levels and production high enough to where socialism would be sustainable.

2. The eradication of national borders and rise of a one world government. There can be no true proletariat revolution unless there is a one world government. Marxist-Leninists had it wrong thinking it would spread from country to country. Marx knew that all along.

3. Strong central bank.

4. Removal of all social safety nets like social security, medicaire, healthcare, etc. This would further expose the bourgeois for what they really are.

5. Increased exposure of the right leading to establishment of a theocracy so they can hide behind religion to mask and divert attention away from themselves.

All of the prerequisites to a global Communist revolution are points on the right's agenda, whether they know it or not.

Marx didn't see capitalism as evil and something that needs to be abolished, but as a tool that will eventually lead to socialism naturally. We'll get there when humanity is ready, but currently that's not the case so moving over to socialism at this time would be foolish.

If you really want to understand Marx you must see things dialectically.

 

[vince]

It's theory is all well and good, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" etc, etc. But Communism has one fundamental flaw which dooms it to failure.

It does not take in to account, or allow for, one very important aspect of basic human nature. Namely greed, the desire to have more, thirst and competition.

In Buddhism it is called tanha, or craving. Humans all suffer from craving, some more than others.

Until the day we all become enlightened, any regime of government that attempts to be communistic, is by default going to be totalitarian. Even if the founders have the highest principles, it is bound to devolve into dictatorship as a means to enforce the credo.

The old communist regimes were communist in name only. The people at the top took privileges for themselves and the masses suffered under their incompetence. The same could be said for our capitalist systems. But in the communist countries there was less accountablity for those in charge and less chance for the masses to feed their cravings as the elite gorged themselves with power and material wealth.

Even without the Cold War, the Soviet Union was bound to collapse from within eventually. I think the Chinese recognized this and it's one of the reasons they have allowed a freer market.

 

[javyn]

The Soviet system collapsed because of Central Planning. I don't think anyone with a brain these days would advocate that. Believe it or not there are socialist systems out there being proposed that actually use a free market as a pricing mechanism to avoid the supply crunch that killed the Soviet economy.

It does not take in to account, or allow for, one very important aspect of basic human nature. Namely greed, the desire to have more, thirst and competition.

Exactly right. But I wouldn't chalk it up as a lost cause because of this. Human nature is constantly changing. Just a few hundred years ago the monarchs would have laughed at us before executing us because of the high values we place on personal liberty and the outrageous idea that all men are created equal under God, rather than just the blue bloods.

We still have these remnants of feudal thinking alive today, but it's slowly fading.

I think our natures will change eventually again which would enable a worldwide Socialist system to function.

Then, from that they will change again in response to Socialism, enabling us to achieve a state of Communism, and people can live in the Star Trek-like utopia we all dream of.

Not going to happen in my lifetime, not in my childrens' or even grandchildrens' lifetime, but it is a noble cause to work for for humanity's future, while being pragmatic enough today to realize we are far from there and that the free market capitalist system is the best we currently have.

One of the many reasons I'm a die-hard Libertarian today. Not only do I agree with their views on the economy (conservative) and society (liberal), but a Libertarian right holding power would mean decentralized democratic authority (rather than centralized NeoCon), making it way more difficult to establish a dictatorship once we do move to Socialism, which looks like we are whether we like it or not.

Also note, if you guys don't know already by now, Socialism and Communism are two completely different systems. Socialism, like Capitalism, are just phases to go through towards the end goal, which would be Communism.

 

[javyn]

Communism or Neo-communism or whatever-the-fuck Mr Zeitgeist was on about in the second half of addendum are not my idea of freedom and liberty.

This Mr. Zeitgeist whoever he is, doesn't know what he's talking about. Communism isn't the government knowing what's best for you, it's having no government at all because it is no longer necessary. Like most people, Mr. Z has confused Communism with Socialism.

 

[mitchymo]

Chuck Hena has misunderstood the Zeitgeist Addendum, it is not saying the government knows better. It wants a new government that in time will be a global government but that must be attained slowly with subtle changes that then may be perceived as radical when looking back in history.

Some of the things which the Zeitgeist Movement (not a single person) believe are:-

-Government should be made up of literally everyone who has a right to vote so that decisions made in the name of the people are literally the majority decision and such application of ratio could ensure that only an overwhelming majority may count.

-Religion should be 'back-seated' and play no organised part in education (as it is already in some parts of the world) In time i guess they would call for the demolition of churches etc but then that is no surprise as:-

-They want to see people stop wasting money repairing and upgrading our towns and cities in favour of building new ones altogether which are designed to be economic. Buildings would be designed to withstand fire, flood, wind and quakes by being produced as a single unit rather than built at all. So it would not just be churches demolished it would be all buildings with likely exception of historically significant ones.

-Money removed from the equation, nobody will buy anything they need because it will be free. This would be transitional and for example may involve buying things we want but do not ultimately need to so as to fund the new set-up where water, food and homes will not require payment to have.

-Computors and Technology will do most of the jobs that humans already do and as we advance technologically we will see machines doing jobs that we could'nt imagine today.

-Education would remain and teach the same core subjects for obvious reasons but would include broader curriculum or replaced subjects to emphasise the importance of nature on our lives and that we should be protective and not wasteful of its resources

-Geothermal technology will provide the core of our energy needs

-An absence of money removes the core need for criminality and equality becomes much more literal as nobody can reap in wealth at a cost to the poor

The most argued response to the Zeitgeist Movements proposed system for future society is that without money there is no incentive to do anything and i have that argument too, i cannot see what the inspiration would be to achieve anything.
They argue the point that mozart played music because he enjoyed it and not because he was paid to do it and in a world where people are able to do more of the things they enjoy doing instead of being voluntarily enslaved by having to work for money will yield results.

Essentially the Zeitgeits ideology is to protect the Earth to the benefit of humanity which in order to do we must be economical and not profit hungry.

The world economy relies on cyclical consumption where we buy things produce things and employ people who buy things that are produced by people who are employed etc etc and that if the world crashes then society is doomed because desperation will lead to anarchy. Money literally is the root of all evil in most of societies troubles and so we would be wise to get rid of it.

I found all the zeitgeist documentaries inspiring and futuristic and i would love to see their vision working although i know it is not likely in my lifetime or perhaps anyone who is alive today because it has to be a transitional change and not a radical one.

Perhaps the first step may be a new style of democracy where we get to have a greter say than simply excercising a vote, i know that i would like to have a meaningful say on when and if we go to war for example rather than leaving it to any current government who claims (rightfully for now) that it is ultimately their responsibility to decide.

At the end of the day politicians are politicians and the likelihood that following september 11th we wouldnt still be where we are now is slim because governments will always do what they think is in the best interests of the country and then end up being blamed for it if the decision turns out to be bad. Greater say for all is what i say.

 

[javyn]

After a bit of googling, I saw that Zeitgeist is advocating the Venus Project....a bit of a pipe dream if you ask me. Seems like this will be to government and economics what Dianetics is to religion, no offense man.

No need to get into the realm of sci-fi just yet for alternatives.

There are several alternatives out there that are a bit more reality based. One, being Economic Democracy AKA Free Market Socialism, which seems to stand up to even the harshest economic criticisms.

Or, if you are feeling in an idealistic mood, there's always Participatory Economics.

You should look those up, but most exciting to me is Free Market Socialism. I consider myself a rightwinger, because my background is in economics, so I'm naturally going to have a hardon for the free market. That's my most important issue and passion. EconDemoc takes Socialism and lays on top of it a free market pricing system, which is absolutely necessary for any economy to function - thus keeping the economy intact, as well as keeping humanity intact by abolishing the labor and capital markets.

 

[mitchymo]

After a bit of googling, I saw that Zeitgeist is advocating the Venus Project....a bit of a pipe dream if you ask me. Seems like this will be to government and economics what Dianetics is to religion, no offense man.

No need to get into the realm of sci-fi just yet for alternatives.

There are several alternatives out there that are a bit more reality based. One, being Economic Democracy AKA Free Market Socialism, which seems to stand up to even the harshest economic criticisms.

Or, if you are feeling in an idealistic mood, there's always Participatory Economics.

You should look those up, but most exciting to me is Free Market Socialism. I consider myself a rightwinger, because my background is in economics, so I'm naturally going to have a hardon for the free market. That's my most important issue and passion. EconDemoc takes Socialism and lays on top of it a free market pricing system, which is absolutely necessary for any economy to function - thus keeping the economy intact, as well as keeping humanity intact by abolishing the labor and capital markets.

Ok will in honesty i cannot understand the comparison as i've never heard of the term Dionetics so don't know what that is to religion. :smile:

As for opting for something more 'reality based'? Sci Fi is the future dude, i bet people were saying the same thing to the Wright Brothers when they were looking for new ways to move around quicker.

 

[javyn]

Ok will in honesty i cannot understand the comparison as i've never heard of the term Dionetics so don't know what that is to religion. :smile:

As for opting for something more 'reality based'? Sci Fi is the future dude, i bet people were saying the same thing to the Wright Brothers when they were looking for new ways to move around quicker.

Heh Dianetics is the Scientology Bible.

I love sci-fi too, and realize that, but I think the Venus project is just way too out there. Maybe one day....but not now. Free Market Socialism would be easy and rather seemless a transition for most people, and perhaps from there we can move to ParaEcon, and then maybe to straight up Communism if it works well enough. But you gotta take baby steps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy

 

[mitchymo]

Heh Dianetics is the Scientology Bible.

I love sci-fi too, and realize that, but I think the Venus project is just way too out there. Maybe one day....but not now. Free Market Socialism would be easy and rather seemless a transition for most people, and perhaps from there we can move to ParaEcon, and then maybe to straight up Communism if it works well enough. But you gotta take baby steps.

Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well i did say they recognise the need for transition.

Anyway things might get a little help along with a hefty kick up the backside from mother nature if the 2012 thing has any credibility.

 

[javyn]

Eh, don't be so optimistic on that. Should the arrival of 2013 come on the heels of catastrophe, I'm sure half the idiots here in America will still be stubborn, thinking Jesus will come down to save them.

 

[jason_els]

Yup, you're a socialist at the least, communist at the most.

The previous commenter is correct: neocommunism is really classical communism as envisioned by Marx himself, not as executed by the USSR, China, or their satellites.

One of the problems with communism is that there is no respect for plurality of opinion as there's no way to integrate it into the political spectrum as communism only works when everyone does exactly what is expected of them. Communism also has enormous problems with the economic structure as it's extremely difficult to raise capital for economic or even social development. Innovation and adaptation are also extremely difficult as (in theory) everyone has to agree on exactly what true needs are and what true ability is and then satisfying each one of those needs for every person. A person living in New York City might easily not need a car but someone living in rural Kansas certainly does. Do we give cars to people in New York just because people in Kansas get them? How do we keep things equitable while taking into account true need? How do we reward good performance while punishing bad performance while still making certain everyone is treated equitably? That was a huge problem the Soviets could not get around without giving some comrades better stuff than other comrades.

The idea is not impossible. I would suggest looking at strongly socialist nations which use a synthesis of private and public wealth to develop economic and social goods and services.

 

[midlifebear]

Yeah, Jason_Els has it pretty much nailed. Approximately 33% of Spain's population belongs to Spain's version of a communist party and hold a considerable number of seats in parliament. But there's never enough of them to "take over." However, they are a welcome support group when it comes to Zapatero (a "real" Socialist) to form a coalition government.

Sigh . . . Zapatero may not run in the next election and despite the bottomed-out economy, he's still very popular.

Anyway, you get in a taxi, start talking politics and the taxi driver is almost guaranteed to proudly claim that he's a Communist. Most folks working in the service industries and construction are fond of thinking themselves as Communists. But if the country were ever to elect a Communist candidate as prime minister, he or she would have a damn hard time forming a coalition government, thus leaving a gaping hole for Rajoy (think Bush with an Adalusian accent) to waltz in and piss everyone off the same way ex prime minister Aznar did -- who was a great pal of El Presidente Arbusto's (Curious George the W.).

 

[mitchymo]

Yup, you're a socialist at the least, communist at the most.

The previous commenter is correct: neocommunism is really classical communism as envisioned by Marx himself, not as executed by the USSR, China, or their satellites.

One of the problems with communism is that there is no respect for plurality of opinion as there's no way to integrate it into the political spectrum as communism only works when everyone does exactly what is expected of them. Communism also has enormous problems with the economic structure as it's extremely difficult to raise capital for economic or even social development. Innovation and adaptation are also extremely difficult as (in theory) everyone has to agree on exactly what true needs are and what true ability is and then satisfying each one of those needs for every person. A person living in New York City might easily not need a car but someone living in rural Kansas certainly does. Do we give cars to people in New York just because people in Kansas get them? How do we keep things equitable while taking into account true need? How do we reward good performance while punishing bad performance while still making certain everyone is treated equitably? That was a huge problem the Soviets could not get around without giving some comrades better stuff than other comrades.

The idea is not impossible. I would suggest looking at strongly socialist nations which use a synthesis of private and public wealth to develop economic and social goods and services.

In Zeitgeist vision there are NO cars as personal property, cars are environmentally unfriendly and transportation would be mostly public. Also the rural issue would be irrelevant as communities would be contained within cities completely including farms etc.

One of the main reasons i sympathise with their vision is my current hatred of banks. My bank has just taken upon itself to change the date in which it deducts its interest and charges from bank accounts, this serves the bank well at the expense of the poorest workers, i have been fined 3 months in a row because i cannot afford to leave money in the bank enough to cover the costs and so i incur a fine for tipping my overdraft limit which leaves me short of cash the following month and the cycle continues. When they deducted at the beginning of the month then falling short at the end was difficult to do because it is a struggle to stretch what little may be left, if the money is not there when you are desperate then you have to make do and it is practically impossible to have money sat there now and be able to resist taking advantage of it. I see no justifiable reason to change their policy after 17 years of banking with them except to profit in the current economic climate.....at my expense and everyone else who have low incomes, especially when that money is going to make up the interest on the wealthiest peoples accounts.

 

[jason_els]

Oh modern banking is evil and controlled by a cabal of bankers the world over. The Federal Reserve, a private banking cartel, reports (in theory) to Congress and the President but they really report to the Bank of International Settlements. Our current economic crisis was entirely manufactured by the banking system and they knew what the result would be because economic theory states what would happen. They dropped interest rates to nothing creating a tsunami of easy money, insured by the government so they could lend to anybody who asked, and then that tsunami followed the most predictable path. It first went into the stock market, which rose. People then cashed-in and bought real estate. When that inflated commodities became scarce and so they inflated as well. That's the cycle. Stocks to real estate to commodities and after that comes the crash with governments providing the bail-outs so the big banks make money even if the small ones get fucked.

So if you want to get rich, and you're young enough that this will probably happen again in your life time, when you see current economic shithouse like this, buy whatever blue chips that pay dividends you can on a day when the market stinks (like yesterday). Just buy a few shares if that's all you can afford. Keep doing that on down days and then just sit on them forever until interest rates drop down again. It could be 10 or 20 or 30 years so buy stocks that allow you to reinvest the dividends. When the market starts soaring up to unheard of heights, sell them and, buy a pile of gold. Don't worry, it'll be cheap. Then, just sit on that and wait out the real estate bubble because right after that, gold will skyrocket. Because there is overlap in these bubbles, you'll be able to sell your gold for a fortune and then buy some very nice distressed real estate with cash to spare. Then take that spare cash and put it back into blue chips when the market is at its low. Wash, rinse, repeat. This is how the process happens. It takes a lot of fortitude to buck the trend and not listen to financial advisers and TV pundits. It takes even more fortitude to withstand the roller coaster that is the gold market where you can see your investment fall (or rise) 20% or more in a day. The key is patience and faith in the laws of central banking economics.

So yeah, banks suck but they can also make you rich if you know what you're doing and don't listen to the guys who just want to make a quick profit off of you. Most of them don't have a clue what's going on, only the guys upstairs do.

 

[jason_els]

P.S- And that real estate I mentioned? Don't buy until then. Rent if you have to. When you do buy, be sure you have at least one apartment attached to the property so you can rent it out. You want someone else paying your mortgage. If you should see another bubble cycle come around, don't sell your real estate until the top of the market (you'll know when that is when house flippers are making fortunes and your average realtor drives a REALLY nice car), then take the proceeds, go rent a place, and buy that pile of gold again. You'll know when gold tops out when the junior mining companies skyrocket in value (in fact, buy them instead of gold if you can still sleep at night). Sell then and hang on, plow your money into those dividend-paying blue chips again, and repeat the cycle. It's really important that the real estate you buy pays for itself somehow. Otherwise it's just a liability in your old age because so long as you're alive you'll always need a place to live and where you live should either be an asset that's off-the-table in that it's not up for sale, OR it should be someplace you can leave and move elsewhere for your economic benefit. Keep it reasonable too. Don't buy the most you can afford, and always always pay attention to location. As they say in the real estate biz, "It's location, location, location."

Nick8's mom was shocked when he bought a place in Union Square in New York. The area was seedy, the street loud, and the park was full of unsavory people to say the least. But what Nick8 saw was that the park was being renovated by the city, real estate in New York was booming, and the gentrification which was going on downtown was moving up toward Union Square. Union Square is also the nexus of many different subway lines and not far from that are three other subway lines. Everybody in New York uses the subway unless you can afford private car services so he bet on the area. He was right. Union Square was rehabbed (is still being rehabbed), the area became decent, some of the best restaurants in the city are there and so are a few hip hotels. It's all about the location.

 

[Elmer Gantry]

That's beautiful, Jason. Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[jason_els]

That's beautiful, Jason. Couldn't have put it better myself.

Thanks Chuck!