nameta9 Posted February 19, 2005 Author Share Posted February 19, 2005 You may be right. If humanity doesn't evolve any further and capitalism is the last system then we may very well end up evolving backwards towards the dark ages as I have exposed in another post right on this forum. I am also thinking in terms of 100 or 1000 years, and also in terms of the "technological singularity" theories where we should reach a point where everything changes anyways through trillions of computers, genetic engineered brains, smarter than man robots etc. I am putting the "advanced society" concept within the framework of science fiction. Actually communism is a kind of science fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 Stories were written about how people were going to live in societies with mass over production of everything And yet it never actually seems to happen. Today mobile phones. Tomorrow, the World! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 I am also thinking in terms of 100 or 1000 years, and also in terms of the "technological singularity" theories where we should reach a point where everything changes anyways through trillions of computers, genetic engineered brains, smarter than man robots etc. I suppose it is possible that technological development will advance to such a degree that the world becomes completely mechanised. Nanobots able to form anything out of dust. Super intelligent computers directing all necessary work, making all human acton redundant. It would seem that we would be Kings in our own paradises. However, i think at that stage we would be more like ghosts in the machine. Pointless, without purpose and totally redundant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nameta9 Posted February 19, 2005 Author Share Posted February 19, 2005 A little known corollary of marxist (or communistic theories) is that what man strives for is the abolition of much work to then concentrate on the creative, artistical or philosophical aspects of life. So I would suppose that not as ghosts but as artists , scientists experimenters etc. would be our destiny. Anyways some small part of this is already present today, look at the popularity of video games, movies etc. And the time for work has somewhat decreased, if it did increase in the US (not much in other countries) is because of a cultural guilt complex, and because the US is generally reactionary and the companies have no idea how to grant the favor of one against the other so they force you to make believe you are working insane hours when you're mostly just wasting time as much office work today is really ghost like. I think the hippie movements kind of came close to communism but they failed because they couldn't deal with the open couple concept and jealousy made them fight etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 A little known corollary of marxist (or communistic theories) is that what man strives for is the abolition of much work to then concentrate on the creative, artistical or philosophical aspects of life. So I would suppose that not as ghosts but as artists , scientists experimenters etc. would be our destiny. If work was abolished then people would become aimless, infantilised creatures looking for cheap thrills to validate a meaningless existence. Your own comment about the popularity of video games backs my point up, what part of playing a video game could be considered philosophing or scientifically experimenting? I think the hippie movements kind of came close to communism but they failed because they couldn't deal with the open couple concept and jealousy made them fight etc. The hippie movements failed because they were a bunch of fantastising self righteous junkies with no idea of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 The hippie movements failed because they were a bunch of fantastising self righteous junkies with no idea of reality. To me, this sounds like a very harsh judgment on your part. In what way did what hippie movements fail, in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 To me, this sounds like a very harsh judgment on your part. In what way did what hippie movements fail, in your opinion? They failed according to their own standards. They promised communities where property would be held in common with peace and love reigning, where materialism, greed, envy and aggression would be things of the past. A few communes were set up. Then the smarter hippies dropped out of dropping out and got jobs on Wall Street while the dumber hippies fried their brains and can be seen begging for change while mumbling about CIA mind control programmes. They didn't achieve any of their self proclaimed objectives, therefore they failed. Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reverse Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 You seem to have an excentric definition of communism. How would you actually define communism? Me…….. umm…….. off the cuff, Group ownership rather than individual ownership. Group determination rather than individual. yup that works for me. turn your sense of identity inside out to where you identify with the state before your own desires or family even. ps: Adam Smiths ideas seem to depend on being able to transport for a reasonable price, mass produced items. Now if the fuel is all used up in production that stuffs up the whole theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nameta9 Posted February 21, 2005 Author Share Posted February 21, 2005 Lets not be extremists in our views. I said abolution of much work, but not all and anyways there is no contradiction between wanting to work more within an advanced society, you just would not really be doing it "against" another person or because you are forced to pay an enormous rent (like in most of the western world now) but because you like to. That is fine! Open source software developers "work for free" and some work alot more than microsoft programmers that work for a "career". The concept of work is a gray concept, if you want to build a home competely by hand, do it, you are free. It would not be you are "not allowed to work" you may and most would anyways because it would be interesting etc. I think you could more realistically imagine "working less" like in the scandinavian countries, which are by the way richer than americans who work their butts off. Hippie movements failed because human nature evolves more slowly than their political theory. We may reach a commune society or maybe not. I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coquina Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 There are still a few functioning "communities", there is one near Bedford, Virginia that started in the 60's. People come and go (my daughter was a part of it for a while), but it continues. I don't think any of the people in that particular community do drugs. They try to live in harmony with nature, with a minimum of technology. They farm and produce organically grown foods, which they sell in the cities close by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nameta9 Posted February 21, 2005 Author Share Posted February 21, 2005 If any communism will ever come to age it will start in the USA, since that is the most advanced country along the road of capitalism according to Marxist theory. Given the high standard of living and low prices of many goods and greater affordability of housing compared to most of the world the US is aready somewhat of a communist nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 If any communism will ever come to age it will start in the USA, since that is the most advanced country along the road of capitalism according to Marxist theory. You seem to believe that Marxist theory is valid. Since all communist revolutions have taken place in poor, underdeveloped countries contrary to Maxist theory it appears that this theory is wrong. Given the high standard of living and low prices of many goods and greater affordability of housing compared to most of the world the US is aready somewhat of a communist nation. In what way does having high standards of living make a country in any way communist? Yes, the USA is rich. Therefore is is somehat communist? That does not make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nameta9 Posted February 21, 2005 Author Share Posted February 21, 2005 As the chinese guy said, it doesn't matter if the cat is black or red as long as it gets the mouse! So the wealth in the US trickles down the social ladder and everyone kind of gets a bite. So more people are well off , and you get closer to complete social wealth. If you need another 200 years of harsh capitalism to reach complete universal wealth so be it , the end will be communism (maybe?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 the problem is, is that it`s not TRUE communism, and the wealth doesn`t "trickle down" those at the "top" are skimming off Everything, and the people are left idealy in the same situ and for as long as possible edit: by people, I mean the poor workers that suffer and die regularly as a result of the "fat cat`s" greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 If you need another 200 years of harsh capitalism to reach complete universal wealth so be it , the end will be communism (maybe?). Universal wealth is not communism. Even if such a scenario was achieved where everyone was materially secure and well off it would not be communism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 You seem to believe that Marxist theory is valid. Since all communist revolutions have taken place in poor, underdeveloped countries contrary to Maxist theory it appears that this theory is wrong. What? It does not seem remotely possible that the failure is because the revolutions took place in underdeveloped countries? Seeking to apply a theory in the wrong context will not demonstrate invalidity of the theory. Aardvark, I don't always agree with your posts, but your logic is usually sound. On this occasion you are talking nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reverse Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 A Red under the bed. wasn't that a big anti communist campaign established by the US government. Wasn’t even Charlie Chaplin in the gun for it? Hasn’t the US spent billions upon billions of dollars and countless lives fighting communism. What are "they" so afraid of???? and more specifically who are "they"? knowing human nature, only one answer comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 What?It does not seem remotely possible that the failure is because the revolutions took place in underdeveloped countries? Seeking to apply a theory in the wrong context will not demonstrate invalidity of the theory. Aardvark' date=' I don't always agree with your posts, but your logic is usually sound. On this occasion you are talking nonsense.[/quote'] You misunderstand my point, perhaps i should have expressed it more clearly. I am not stating that Marxism, as such, is an invalid theory, but that the proposition in Marxism that revolutions will take place in the most advanced countries is false. It is that part of Marxist theory which i was arguing had been shown as wrong by events. Sorry that i didn't make that more clear in the original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 A Red under the bed. wasn't that a big anti communist campaign established by the US government. Wasn’t even Charlie Chaplin in the gun for it? Hasn’t the US spent billions upon billions of dollars and countless lives fighting communism. What are "they" so afraid of???? and more specifically who are "they"? knowing human nature' date=' only one answer comes to mind.[/quote'] And that answer is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reverse Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Oh no no no. not that easy. you have to figure this out for yourself. What do you know about the great trusts that were created in the early stages of the US. the coal trusts , the rail trusts... etc. got any names. the "who" will lead you to the "why". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Oh no no no.not that easy. you have to figure this out for yourself. Be quiet then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 You misunderstand my point' date=' perhaps i should have expressed it more clearly. I am not stating that Marxism, as such, is an invalid theory, but that the proposition in Marxism that revolutions will take place in the most advanced countries is false. It is that part of Marxist theory which i was arguing had been shown as wrong by events. Sorry that i didn't make that more clear in the original post.[/quote']Ah! That makes sense now. I would ask though, was it not Marx's contention that the socialist revolutions should take place first in the more developed nations, not that they would take place there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reverse Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 Be quiet then. your ball, your rules. now you know how power corrupts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 your ball' date=' your rules.now you know how power corrupts.[/quote'] Stop posting irrelevant twaddle. Stop it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reverse Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 Now that you two have sorted out your slight (semantic) misunderstanding. (kidding) What makes you think that Communism has failed? If it enabled China to get to where it is today, and remembering that the Chinese are not calling their new form of economy “capitalist”, then perhaps it has evolved as expected and therefore communism can be considered a success. I mean what is the population of China. That is one hell of a lot of people to carry on the cause. Remember, the Chinese are said to have had gunpowder and magnets, for many centuries before anyone else They did not use them to take over the world. Why should they be interested in doing so now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now