Communist/Socialist morality is outdated in a modern context? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Do you think communist morality is outdated?

Yes
8
36%
No
8
36%
Other
6
27%
#14977965
JohnRawls wrote:@Pants-of-dog

You didn't answer the question though. Why are the workers higher on the chain deserving of the same pay as the workers on the lower levels. Steps 1 and 2 are more important than the other steps. If we take Steve Jobs as an example, he wasn't the first one that invented the smart phone, he is just the person who redesigned it and made it popular. So are you see, the 1st and 2nd steps can't be done by just anyone nor the compensation should be the same. Why would you compensate somebody the same for doing a better job?


I am not sure what you are asking here.

Step 1 seems to be simply identifying a good or service that people want or need.

This does not require Steve Jobs, or an owner of a business. We all have ideas like this, and the difference is that people like Jobs already have money (or investors) so that they can then use their wealth to get others to work for them and make the idea a reality.

For example, we did not need someone like Jobs to figure out we can use universal health care. Or an end to famine and malnutrition.

And I never addressed the issue of relative wages for the workers at different steps of the process because I am not sure the concept if wages would even be relevant in a world where it is impossible to use economic leverage as a tool for exploitation.

Even if we assume that people do earn wages in this world, they would also be involved in work that is not alienating, and they would also have access to things like universal health care, free PSE, etc. Most workers would not feel the same pressures for a higher wage that they do now.

As for the brands, well, i said that an answer that brands will not exist is not acceptable. Many can build a Lada but not many can build a Tesla or a BMW etc. That is kinda the point of brands which you want to disappear. People are generally not interested in an infinite amount of Ladas unless there is no other choice.


Considering the fact that cars kill and pollute on a significant level, I have no problem with massive decreases in automobile ownership and use.

As to your point that people really want or need brands, we would have to ask ourselves why people would want or need such brands and then decide if it is worth it to provide it. If we look at cars, very few people need high performance cars, and most people buy luxury cars in order to impress the neighbours.

If I have to choose between freeing everyone of economic exploitation and maintaining the ability for well off people to engage in conspicuous consumption, then I would invariably choose the former.
#14979299
B0ycey wrote:It is not about voluntary cooperation but basic economics. You can get more out of pooling tax revenues in terms of public spending. Not to mention trade barriers and resources. If you start creating a shit load of small nations, they could never accumulate enough wealth to finance building a well let along alone an aerospace firm.
The solution to this dilemma would be confederalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communalism#Confederalism , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_%C3%96calan#Democratic_confederalism . That's the beauty of political ideology , it can be innovated upon , in order to meet challenges as they arise . As I posted before , the key thing is to adapt classical precepts to modern life .
#14979308
My response was in regards to One Degree's world of autonomous cities. Lands that create their policy by the whim of the populous in regards to the resources they have available. But sure confederation is an option. Although he is against that too.

Ultimately world power, security and influence is today achieved by unity. Division will just weaken your state. By breaking up the world (which will never happen) all that will in likelihood happen is a refugee crisis, creation of high rise living and cities amalgamating with each other to enhance their power.

This is just a pipedream of a fanatic who is obsessed in stupidity.
#14979312
B0ycey wrote:My response was in regards to One Degree's world of autonomous cities. Lands creating policy by the whim of the populous in regards to their resources they have available. But sure confederation is an option. Although he is against that too.

Ultimately world power, security and influence is today achieved by unity. Division will just weaken your state. By breaking up the world (which will never happen) all that will in likelihood happen is refugee crisis, creation of high rise living and cities amalgamating with each other to enhance their power.

This is just a pipedream of a fanatic who is obsessed in stupidity.


It is not totally true I reject confederalism. It is more accurate to say I reject creating a permanent structure for confederation.
I actually support a separate confederation for control of vast areas of the earth not under the control of the individual autonomous areas. They would each have a say in safeguarding these territories and distributing the wealth from them. I object to any restrictions on the communities themselves within their own borders.
#14979313
One Degree wrote: It is more accurate to say I reject creating a permanent structure for confederation.
I actually support a separate confederation for control of vast areas of the earth not under the control of the individual autonomous areas.


If the confederation is not permanent, how exactly is this meant to work? This does not make any sense. You either unite or you don't. Although the only criticism of creating a confederation from a previous federation is expecting that everything is going to be equal. I suspect poorer nations will have to sacrifice sovereignty for money and then you could argue that they would have been better off remaining as a federation as their voice was more determined by represention rather than wealth.

Although it needs to be said that what you advocate sounds very similar to what you have in America now. That is each state is autonomous and they are united in safeguarding their territories and distributing their wealth from them for the good of the federation [confederation]. You are pretty much asking for what you have.
#14979317
B0ycey wrote:If the confederation is not permanent, how exactly is this meant to work? This does not make any sense. You either unite or you don't. Although the only criticism of creating a confederation from a previous federation is expecting that everything is going to be equal. I suspect poorer nations will have to sacrifice sovereignty for money and then you could argue that they would have been better off remaining as a federation as their voice was more determined by represention rather than wealth.

Although it needs to be said that what you advocate sounds very similar to what you have in America now. That is each state is autonomous and they are united in safeguarding their territories and distributing their wealth from them for the good of the federation [confederation]. You are pretty much asking for what you have.

I have tried to explain my belief before that ideology is not the problem or solution but structure is. A formalized confederation will evolve into a federation and eventually authoritarianism. I propose a voluntary confederation. No officials. No capital. No constitution. Etc. Just a willingness to agree on things as they come up without writing permanent laws or precedents.
As how this would work in practice, if you want to drill for oil somewhere then everyone agrees and creates a company for this purpose. Each community may send a person to work on site if they wish. It is not a permanent settlement and can not be expanded by people simply choosing to open a business there.
The individual communities themselves should use technology to become as self sufficient as possible. Once true self sufficiency is achieved, then the confederation will no longer be needed.
If a community does not want to be a part of the voluntary confederation, that is fine but they will be restricted to their community and receive a reduced share of international resources. This and aggression on another community are the only time joint force might be necessary, but again it would be a joint and voluntary action.
This is one reason the individual communities need to be fairly small to insure cooperation is seen as very beneficial.
#14979321
One Degree wrote:I have tried to explain my belief before that ideology is not the problem or solution but structure is. A formalized confederation will evolve into a federation and eventually authoritarianism. I propose a voluntary confederation. No officials. No capital. No constitution. Etc. Just a willingness to agree on things as they come up without writing permanent laws or precedents.


Then you ask for the abolition of states. You might as well either declare you are a Marxist - or perhaps more fitting for you, an anarchist. If you advocate for private property then you should read VS more. If you ask for socialism as the populous decides the fate of the means of production of your oil company, then perhaps Marx.

Once true self sufficiency is achieved, then the confederation will no longer be needed.


Perhaps possible for a coastal town, not really an option for a landlocked nation is it? Although I suspect the united confederations will out compete the isolated nation that has decided to limit its market.

If a community does not want to be a part of the voluntary confederation, that is fine but they will be restricted to their community and receive a reduced share of international resources. This and aggression on another community are the only time joint force might be necessary, but again it would be a joint and voluntary action.
This is one reason the individual communities need to be fairly small to insure cooperation is seen as very beneficial.


So if the state doesn't conform it gets attacked? Who leads this army? An organisation that doesn't exist as you don't advocate for written policy or a confederate organisation to create such an army (what use is an army going to be with a setup of townfolk?)

Perhaps I will leave your pipe dream fantasy ideology that will never happen for now. I am fed up filling in the holes and didn't respond to you initially anyway.
#14979322
B0ycey wrote:Then you ask for the abolition of states. You might as well either declare you are a Marxist - or perhaps more fitting for you, an anarchist. If you advocate for private property then you should read VS more. If you ask for socialism as the populous decides the fate of the means of production of your oil company, then perhaps Marx.



Perhaps possible for a coastal town, not really an option for a landlocked nation is it? Although I suspect the united confederations will out compete the isolated nation that has decided to limit its market.



So if the state doesn't conform it gets attacked? Who leads this army? An organisation that doesn't exist as you don't advocate for written policy or a confederate organisation to create such an army (what use is an army going to be with a setup of townfolk?)

Perhaps I will leave your pipe dream fantasy ideology that will never happen for now. I am fed up filling in the holes and didn't respond to you initially anyway.


I never expected the UN to hail me as a hero. :) It is just an idea I play with.
The only risk of attack is if you are the aggressor against another community or insist upon pirating ‘free lands’ for your own benefit.
I don’t care what label you try to apply to my thoughts. :)
#14984950
“Communist” morality isn’t outdated because it was never moral to begin with. Over the course of the 20th century Communism has done a better job of slaughtering people in job lots than any that came before. And then there’s the way Communist governments have oppressed and persecuted their own people. No other ideology that has been seriously tried has done a better job of killing, oppressing, and impoverishing the peoples of those nations that have tried it.
#14984951
Doug64 wrote:“Communist” morality isn’t outdated because it was never moral to begin with. Over the course of the 20th century Communism has done a better job of slaughtering people in job lots than any that came before. And then there’s the way Communist governments have oppressed and persecuted their own people. No other ideology that has been seriously tried has done a better job of killing, oppressing, and impoverishing the peoples of those nations that have tried it.


You are talking about the implementation of communism but the topic is about morality itself. :roll:
#14984953
JohnRawls wrote:You are talking about the implementation of communism but the topic is about morality itself. :roll:

The implementation is the child of the morality.
#14984955
Doug64 wrote:The implementation is the child of the morality.


Perhaps. But we are not discussing implementation but the morality of it all. I understand that you don't like it and so do i but there is no need to go full "They killed millions". Capitalism also killed millions in one way or the other.
#14984973
JohnRawls wrote:Perhaps. But we are not discussing implementation but the morality of it all. I understand that you don't like it and so do i but there is no need to go full "They killed millions". Capitalism also killed millions in one way or the other.

Capitalism has done more to improve and lengthen lives than any other economic system in history. You can say the same thing about Capitalism as Churchill said about Democracy, it’s a horrible system except for all the rest. Communism has done nothing but spread poverty, oppression, and death wherever it’s been adopted. So yes, Communism is fundamentally, inherently immoral.
#14984997
Doug64 wrote:“Communist” morality isn’t outdated because it was never moral to begin with. Over the course of the 20th century Communism has done a better job of slaughtering people in job lots than any that came before. And then there’s the way Communist governments have oppressed and persecuted their own people. No other ideology that has been seriously tried has done a better job of killing, oppressing, and impoverishing the peoples of those nations that have tried it.


Thousands of people die each year in the US because of capitalism.

And there were almost certainly millions of indigenous people who died as capitalism and colonialism spread across North America.

Plus all the avoidable deaths that occur from famine and lack of ehalth care in developing nations that are due to the inadequate resource allocation system we call capitalism.

And all those right wing dictatorships, with their stadiums of dead, and rape dogs.

Capitalism seems to be doing very well in the megadeath Olympics.

My mother is a Marxist.

She gave me a moral teaching that I try to live by: each to their ability, each to their need.

Would you say that is outdated in this modern context?
#14987123
Pants-of-dog wrote:Thousands of people die each year in the US because of capitalism.

And many more thousands live because of Capitalism.

And there were almost certainly millions of indigenous people who died as capitalism and colonialism spread across North America.

No, the vast majority of indigenous deaths were caused by disease—possibly as many as 19 out of 20—and would have occurred whatever economic system the incoming Europeans used ... which was Mercantilism at the time, Capitalism wasn’t a thing yet.

Plus all the avoidable deaths that occur from famine and lack of ehalth care in developing nations that are due to the inadequate resource allocation system we call capitalism.

Right, because the Communism and Socialism adopted by so many did such a better job. Have you checked out the state of Venzuela recently?

And all those right wing dictatorships, with their stadiums of dead, and rape dogs.

Which has nothing to do with Capitalism.

Capitalism seems to be doing very well in the megadeath Olympics.

Nope, not even close.

My mother is a Marxist.

She gave me a moral teaching that I try to live by: each to their ability, each to their need.

Would you say that is outdated in this modern context?

That is a marvelous rule to live by so long as it is voluntary, exercised by each individual as he or she chooses instead of imposed on them.
#14987134
Doug64 wrote:And many more thousands live because of Capitalism.


This does not change the fact that people are dying.

No, the vast majority of indigenous deaths were caused by disease—possibly as many as 19 out of 20—and would have occurred whatever economic system the incoming Europeans used ... which was Mercantilism at the time, Capitalism wasn’t a thing yet.


So we agree that millions died as capitalism and colonialism went across the continent. And capitalism was present for most of the time you guys were kilking and raping from one coast to another. It is not as if all colonialism happened in the decade after 1492.

Right, because the Communism and Socialism adopted by so many did such a better job. Have you checked out the state of Venzuela recently?


The one that is being targeted by US sanctions? Yes, it is as if the sanctions are having the desired effect of punishing then for choosing socialism.

And Cuba, which is socialist and has been under a blockade for decades foes better than the USA in many measures of health.

Which has nothing to do with Capitalism.


Yes, right wing dictatorships are definitely about capitalism. Are you not aware of what “right wing” means?

Nope, not even close.


If we add up the deaths from colonialism, the slave trade, the number of people who die from lack of medical insurance, the number who died at the hands of right wing dictatorships, the neverending wars that the US inflicts on the rest of the world, etc., we easily get hundreds of millions of deaths.

That is a marvelous rule to live by so long as it is voluntary, exercised by each individual as he or she chooses instead of imposed on them.


Is it outdated?

I am guessing that you do not think so. Most Christians would argue that this teaching, like other Biblical teachings, cannot be outdated.

Do you think “Thou shalt not kill” should also be voluntary? Or should we be allowed to impose that?
#14987138
Pants-of-dog wrote:And Cuba, which is socialist and has been under a blockade for decades foes better than the USA in many measures of health.

You actually believe the propaganda put out by a totalitarian government? Any totalitarian government? There’s no point “debating” when you have your eyes squeezed shut, enjoy your delusional daydreams.
#14987145
Doug64 wrote:You actually believe the propaganda put out by a totalitarian government? Any totalitarian government? There’s no point “debating” when you have your eyes squeezed shut, enjoy your delusional daydreams.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

    Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal logical fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the attacking army's strength.

Anyway, the US and Cuba have almost the same life expectancy. Cuba has a better infant mortality rate.

And Cuba is a developing country. The USA is the richest country in the world.
#14987148
Pants-of-dog wrote:Anyway, the US and Cuba have almost the same life expectancy. Cuba has a better infant mortality rate.

And Cuba is a developing country. The USA is the richest country in the world.

Do you have any stats for Cuba that aren’t collected by the government? If not, don’t waste our time.

skinster's one of those people who will go straigh[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

That's what I thought. Thank you for clearing thi[…]

But she lost the fucking election, Einstein. Y[…]

Iranian Situation...

@Zionist Nationalist Your politicians do want w[…]