The Environmental Benefits of Communism

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Environmental Benefits of Communism

Post by pErvinalia » Wed May 17, 2017 1:48 am

Yeah, it's the eternal question of nature vs nuture. I suspect most of our sociopathy is a socially learned trait. But then, you've got conservatives, whose brains are wired to be selfish cunts. Unless the brain wiring is a result of social learning.. :ask: Hmmm, I should look into that..
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13528
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: The Environmental Benefits of Communism

Post by rainbow » Wed May 17, 2017 6:04 am

Forty Two wrote:
rainbow wrote:Of course what you are describing is typical State Capitalism.

Revisionist!
The Soviet Union and East Germany, not communist.
Yes, d-uh.
:prof:
Among the first to describe the Russian economy under the Bolshevik government as "state capitalism", was Lenin himself in 1918.
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13528
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: The Environmental Benefits of Communism

Post by rainbow » Wed May 17, 2017 6:06 am

Forty Two wrote:How so?

Is the contention that the Soviet Union and East Germany were capitalist? Or, were they communist? Or were they something else?
You have access to a computer. Use it.

You might find this thing called "Google" quite useful.
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Environmental Benefits of Communism

Post by Forty Two » Wed May 17, 2017 11:39 am

JimC wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
JimC wrote:They were totalitarian states where new ideas of any kind, including environmental awareness were suppressed by the state which understandably feared change...
Communism is by nature a totalitarian ideology.
My point was that it was the totalitarian aspect of their political system that lead to the lack of the development of an environmental movement. Non-communist totalitarian systems would probably go down the same path.

And while it's true that the historical pathways of communism in Russia and China were towards totalitarianism, it is not necessarily inevitable; in other words, I am saying that a non-totalitarian form of socialism is at least possible.
I do not see how a communist political system can be other than totalitarian. The community makes the decisions, owns the property, collects the rents, etc. The ideology requires "from each according to his ability to give" (not "desire" to give, not "in accordance with his chosen path in life...") - if you have "ability" then you must contribute to that extent to the community. If you don't, then what? Communism fails if folks don't give according to their ability, because then it becomes what its detractors says it becomes -- people doing the least they can get away with, because they gain no greater benefit from exertion than they do from inaction. That's why the community must compel. When Marx talked about communism setting up "industrial armies" and collectivizing the farms such that the proletariat would work in those settings directly for the "community" -- the ideology is not built around people opting to go into one line of work or another, or one brother choosing to follow in the family trade and the other choosing to go off and do something else -- he's talking about mass compulsion. When Lenin and Stalin collectivized the farms and industry, and moved people into the worker roles in the farms and industries, they weren't asking for permission, and that was not a deviation from communist ideology - that was them putting it into practice.

Often, folks will point to the idealized stateless, classless society as the reason why it is not inevitably totalitarian. But, it seems to me that to be classless, a community must be totalitarian. In order to eliminate the liberty of individuals to become economically different than other individuals (i.e. to separate into economic classes), there must be a massive coercion and elimination of basic liberties. Moreover, to require of people from each according to their abilities, and only afford people "in accordance with their needs," is itself a totalitarian idea, and that is at the hear of communism. If someone has more than they need, they must give it. If someone has greater abilities, they must give more. I person can be a layabout and still get their needs met, and a person can amass more than their needs, then the basic tenet of "from each, to each" doesn't exist, so it would not be communism. And, if it does exist, then the individual is a slave.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Environmental Benefits of Communism

Post by Forty Two » Wed May 17, 2017 11:40 am

rainbow wrote:
Forty Two wrote:How so?

Is the contention that the Soviet Union and East Germany were capitalist? Or, were they communist? Or were they something else?
You have access to a computer. Use it.

You might find this thing called "Google" quite useful.
I'll let you make your own arguments.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Environmental Benefits of Communism

Post by Forty Two » Wed May 17, 2017 11:55 am

rainbow wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
rainbow wrote:Of course what you are describing is typical State Capitalism.

Revisionist!
The Soviet Union and East Germany, not communist.
Yes, d-uh.
:prof:
Among the first to describe the Russian economy under the Bolshevik government as "state capitalism", was Lenin himself in 1918.
LOL - Lenin pointed out that the communist Soviet Union tried to employ state capitalism as a means to building its economy and to then shift completely to communism. He did not say that the Bolshevik government WAS state capitalism, and in fact in 1922, he bemoaned that the state capitalism he wanted to see created was not proceeding as quickly as he would like. And Lenin said the communist version of state capitalism would "differ essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry." He's talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat. Dictatorship.

Lenin's theory was that Russia needed pass through a period of this proletariat-driven state capitalism before the Marxist socialism could work.

The Revolution took place in 1917, so the first few years would not have seen complete implementation of communism in the soviet union, so references to what Lenin said about the conditions in 1918 and even 1922, are not really relevant. A key point, in my view, is that when Stalin took over in 1922, his measures were not deviations from Marxist Communism, but were faithful to the ideology.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Environmental Benefits of Communism

Post by Forty Two » Wed May 17, 2017 12:00 pm

pErvin wrote:Yeah, but he said by ideology (i.e. by theory). By ideology communism is stateless and everyone pretty much shares everything equally. It's the polar opposite of totalitarian.
Negative.

Communism is not "equal" sharing. Communism is from each according to "ability," and to each according to "need." So, need more, get more. Have more ability, do more and give more.

Further, it's "stateless" but not "coercive governance-less" - it's not ever suggested to be some wonderland of people just behaving properly and sharing and sharing-alike. Read the material written by Marx and Engels - they are not referring to a stateless place involving freedom of the individual, and such, in the Enlightenment sense. Where there is any coherent sense to be made of exactly how decisions are made about how much to produce, and by whom and where, and when, and such, they write about compulsion.

I invite folks to take a second look at the basic texts and keep in mind when reading it the question: does the individual have a choice here? What if someone doesn't want to do it?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Environmental Benefits of Communism

Post by pErvinalia » Wed May 17, 2017 1:38 pm

Forty Two wrote:
pErvin wrote:Yeah, but he said by ideology (i.e. by theory). By ideology communism is stateless and everyone pretty much shares everything equally. It's the polar opposite of totalitarian.
Negative.

Communism is not "equal" sharing. Communism is from each according to "ability," and to each according to "need." So, need more, get more. Have more ability, do more and give more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each ... n_the_idea
Further, it's "stateless" but not "coercive governance-less" - it's not ever suggested to be some wonderland of people just behaving properly and sharing and sharing-alike.
That's exactly what it is. It may or may not be naive, but that's a different argument. Read earlier on in the link I provided.
Read the material written by Marx and Engels - they are not referring to a stateless place involving freedom of the individual, and such, in the Enlightenment sense. Where there is any coherent sense to be made of exactly how decisions are made about how much to produce, and by whom and where, and when, and such, they write about compulsion.
Marx and Engels talked of an evolution from one social state to another state. You'd have to be clear about whether they were specifically referring to the end state communism there.
I invite folks to take a second look at the basic texts and keep in mind when reading it the question: does the individual have a choice here? What if someone doesn't want to do it?
You are claiming it is totalitarian. Appealing to a "what would you do in this situation" isn't an argument. If you assert that it is totalitarian then you need to provide the evidence that the end state of communism necessarily involves some form of coercion. And even if it does, that doesn't necessarily make it totalitarian. The state coerces us now in various realms, and I doubt you'd argue that we live under totalitarianism.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 20981
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: The Environmental Benefits of Communism

Post by laklak » Wed May 17, 2017 4:24 pm

Arguing over what communism is or isn't is like arguing about unicorns. Communism doesn't exist, never has existed, and doubtless never will exist. It's fantasy.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Environmental Benefits of Communism

Post by pErvinalia » Thu May 18, 2017 2:06 am

Yeah.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13528
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: The Environmental Benefits of Communism

Post by rainbow » Thu May 18, 2017 6:55 am

Forty Two wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
rainbow wrote:Of course what you are describing is typical State Capitalism.

Revisionist!
The Soviet Union and East Germany, not communist.
Yes, d-uh.
:prof:
Among the first to describe the Russian economy under the Bolshevik government as "state capitalism", was Lenin himself in 1918.
LOL - Lenin pointed out that the communist Soviet Union tried to employ state capitalism as a means to building its economy and to then shift completely to communism. He did not say that the Bolshevik government WAS state capitalism, and in fact in 1922, he bemoaned that the state capitalism he wanted to see created was not proceeding as quickly as he would like. And Lenin said the communist version of state capitalism would "differ essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry." He's talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat. Dictatorship.

Lenin's theory was that Russia needed pass through a period of this proletariat-driven state capitalism before the Marxist socialism could work.

The Revolution took place in 1917, so the first few years would not have seen complete implementation of communism in the soviet union, so references to what Lenin said about the conditions in 1918 and even 1922, are not really relevant.
See you can use Google!

Thank you for proving my point.
A key point, in my view, is that when Stalin took over in 1922, his measures were not deviations from Marxist Communism, but were faithful to the ideology.
...and then after doing so well, Farty drops the ball just before the tryline. :(
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The Environmental Benefits of Communism

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu May 18, 2017 11:24 am

"O Lord! Who will save us from The Sinistral? "
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Environmental Benefits of Communism

Post by Forty Two » Thu May 18, 2017 12:09 pm

pErvin wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
pErvin wrote:Yeah, but he said by ideology (i.e. by theory). By ideology communism is stateless and everyone pretty much shares everything equally. It's the polar opposite of totalitarian.
Negative.

Communism is not "equal" sharing. Communism is from each according to "ability," and to each according to "need." So, need more, get more. Have more ability, do more and give more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each ... n_the_idea
Exactly! "In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want..." That's the totalitarianism! He's suggesting a system which subordinates the individual to the division of labor and labor has become life's prime want.... he's not saying communism gets rid of that - he's saying communism brings that on, and then moves to a "higher level" phase of communist society once those aims are accomplished.

And the Etienne concepts -- "Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work." - No property, except your toothbrush, soap, water, some food, a t.v. and your tools for work. Sounds "wonderful." [sarcasm]

I wonder, does the individual decide what are the "things for which the person has immediate use?"

pErvin wrote: II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.
III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.
Every citizen WILL make his particular contribution. Every citizen MUST. No right to choose a different path that does not involve your "capacity, talent and age..." -- who decides? Each individual? The great stoneworker can decide that what he really wants to do is be a dancer?

The reason this is totalitarian in nature is because the ability to not make a contribution in accordance with one's "capacity" is conceptually eliminated. If you're tired of a task, but you have great capacity for it, then you "will" make your contribution. How is this accomplished? How are people compelled to do this?

Or, are people not compelled? A system will be set up that entails people just knowing what they do best, and doing it, and only taking what is indisputably their necessaries?

And, look - if you can't make more off your labor - if your efforts at work and labor only bring you "that which you need for immediate use" then you are a slave. That's what slaves were paid. No property. No income. Just food and shelter and some clothing, pretty much. What they needed for immediate use.

Note - I get why this concept was appealing in the 18th and 19th centuries, because people were living on the edge of starvation in serfdom all across the globe. So, when you're starving or one bad incident away from starving, a system that gives people just what they need is a step up. But, what we've seen with capitalism is that most everyone can get much more than what they need. Even the poorer folks (not the homeless and such, of course), have more than just their immediate necessaries.



pErvin wrote:
Further, it's "stateless" but not "coercive governance-less" - it's not ever suggested to be some wonderland of people just behaving properly and sharing and sharing-alike.
That's exactly what it is. It may or may not be naive, but that's a different argument. Read earlier on in the link I provided.
Look, I don't base my views on Wikipedia links. I've read the Critique of the Gotha Program in its entirety, along with Das Kapital, the Communist Manifesto, etc. The idea that Marx suggested a beautiful thing where people just enjoyed working and were motivated solely by their desire to contribute to society - if you look at it - is not a suggestion Marx, himself, made. It's a characterization of Marx's ideas, because without that characterization, his ideas are monstrous and oppressive. The only way to make them palatable is to add the sugar of "...this will be a place where work has become enjoyable and people strive to better themselves for its own sake, all their needs met..." - only Marx himself did not write that.

Marx wrote in the context of European serfdom, when the people were not getting their basic needs met. What he assumed was that if you could just smear it all out - eliminate the difference between the countryside and the cities - organize the land and the factories to produce what the people needed, then the people would happily work for that, because right now they aren't getting even that. I.e., the proles are slaves now anyway, so even a modest boost would be an improvement for them.

pErvin wrote:
Read the material written by Marx and Engels - they are not referring to a stateless place involving freedom of the individual, and such, in the Enlightenment sense. Where there is any coherent sense to be made of exactly how decisions are made about how much to produce, and by whom and where, and when, and such, they write about compulsion.
Marx and Engels talked of an evolution from one social state to another state. You'd have to be clear about whether they were specifically referring to the end state communism there.
Can you provide a citation to anything Marx and Engels wrote about specifically how end state communism would function?
pErvin wrote:
I invite folks to take a second look at the basic texts and keep in mind when reading it the question: does the individual have a choice here? What if someone doesn't want to do it?
You are claiming it is totalitarian. Appealing to a "what would you do in this situation" isn't an argument. If you assert that it is totalitarian then you need to provide the evidence that the end state of communism necessarily involves some form of coercion. And even if it does, that doesn't necessarily make it totalitarian. The state coerces us now in various realms, and I doubt you'd argue that we live under totalitarianism.
No, I'm inferring from the concepts that it must be totalitarian because you cannot achieve the concepts with people involved without it being so. So, our difference here may be our different understandings or interpretations about what end state communism is. To me, if it involves "from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need" it is slavery. That's one aspect. If all I can have is what I need for my immediate use, but I'm expected to work as hard as I can, then that sounds like a slave to me. If I can voluntarily limit my work, then it's not from each according to ability.[/sarcasm]
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Environmental Benefits of Communism

Post by pErvinalia » Thu May 18, 2017 1:39 pm

This is going to be another one of those arguments. You read the link I provided and see something totally different to what the words actually say.

And no, I'm not going to provide a citation from Marx et al, as it is YOU who is making a claim. It is incumbent on you to back up your claims if you want.

And despite all those great words you wrote, so great, you still manage to make my argument for me, despite trying to make a counter argument.
You wrote:What [Marx] assumed was that if you could just smear it all out - eliminate the difference between the countryside and the cities - organize the land and the factories to produce what the people needed, then the people would happily work for that...
It can't both be totalitarian and the people happily existing.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13528
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: The Environmental Benefits of Communism

Post by rainbow » Fri May 19, 2017 7:29 am

pErvin wrote: It can't both be totalitarian and the people happily existing.
Clearly you don't grasp dialectical materialism, then.
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests