Communism. Good or bad. What do you really know about Communism?

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by Nobody1

Well, in reality the indigenous population was already quite large, and also spread throughout the American continent. At least before the Holocaust.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/f1/07/59/f...-americans.jpg

The actual reason behind a missing class consciousness is more likely the fact that the natives practiced indigenous socialism. All land was public property, it belonged to everyone. That was the essential leverage point for the US government to deny any later land claims by the tribes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_Act

While there were a few millions of Indians in North America, in most places they did not achieve the population density to start a "civilization" with class structures, though there were a few exceptions.

The situation was different in Mexico and places south, there were a LOT more people down there, pre-Columbus, and they DID have civilizations with class structures.

No "indigenous" socialism was really involved. When white people were nothing more than small bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers in Europe 15,000 years ago during the Ice Age, they did not have class structures either. They simply did not need them. Humans behave quite differently depending on the size of the groups in which they are placed. Give them a tribe of 200 or so where everybody knows one another and things go along without any real social differentiation. Give them a city of 2 million and lots of trinkets and luxuries to squabble over and it's a whole different ball game.

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

While there were a few millions of Indians in North America, in most places they did not achieve the population density to start a "civilization" with class structures, though there were a few exceptions.

The situation was different in Mexico and places south, there were a LOT more people down there, pre-Columbus, and they DID have civilizations with class structures.

No "indigenous" socialism was really involved. When white people were nothing more than small bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers in Europe 15,000 years ago during the Ice Age, they did not have class structures either. They simply did not need them. Humans behave quite differently depending on the size of the groups in which they are placed. Give them a tribe of 200 or so where everybody knows one another and things go along without any real social differentiation. Give them a city of 2 million and lots of trinkets and luxuries to squabble over and it's a whole different ball game.

I mostly agree with you.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the production and distribution of goods was collective and cooperative. The means of production, though with the exeption of some personal possessions, were common property. The accumulation of wealth was hardly possible since goods were mainly produced for direct consumption. There were simply no artificially created needs through artificially created markets.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

No "indigenous" socialism was really involved. When white people were nothing more than small bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers in Europe 15,000 years ago during the Ice Age, they did not have class structures either. They simply did not need them. Humans behave quite differently depending on the size of the groups in which they are placed. Give them a tribe of 200 or so where everybody knows one another and things go along without any real social differentiation. Give them a city of 2 million and lots of trinkets and luxuries to squabble over and it's a whole different ball game.

Our nomadic ancesters surely had a class structures with alpha, beta, gamma leaders...

But today, how would you define our class structures?
When we read the manifesto of Marx and Engels, it clearly seems that the Bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production) still reign like 150 years ago. The description of the society they depicted is still the same as ours, exactly the same.

Brexit appears to be a still democratic revolution of the British Proletariat against the officers (the technocrats) of the Bourgeoisie.
Medias write that's populism and nationalism appear again since one decade in Europe and now in the USA.... but not really. That's the fears of the Proletariat against the pressure of the Bourgeoisie.

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by Nobody1

I mostly agree with you.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the production and distribution of goods was collective and cooperative. The means of production, though with the exeption of some personal possessions, were common property. The accumulation of wealth was hardly possible since goods were mainly produced for direct consumption. There were simply no artificially created needs through artificially created markets.

The noble classes of Aztec society lived in fine stone dwellings, owned fancy clothes and gold jewelry, enjoyed superior food, and had servants to take care of their needs. Versus the poorer sorts of commoners and slaves who lived in hovels and dined on mostly maize cakes and vegetables.

You don't need a modern "market economy" to have a distinct class structure. Feudalism works just fine for that. It did in Europe up until recently. The nomadic tribes up in the region where I live probably practiced "collectivism", but if they had grown their population past a certain point then that would have changed.

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Our nomadic ancesters surely had a class structures with alpha, beta, gamma leaders...

But today, how would you define our class structures?
When we read the manifesto of Marx and Engels, it clearly seems that the Bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production) still reign like 150 years ago. The description of the society they depicted is still the same as ours, exactly the same.

Brexit appears to be a still democratic revolution of the British Proletariat against the officers (the technocrats) of the Bourgeoisie.
Medias write that's populism and nationalism appear again since one decade in Europe and now in the USA.... but not really. That's the fears of the Proletariat against the pressure of the Bourgeoisie.

Humans have always had hierarchies. But in the old days, the leader was pretty much the best and strongest hunter, chosen for his abilities to feed the tribal band. In this case the social hierarchy tendencies of primates and the mandates of natural selection were at work, to ensure the survival of the tribe.

But these days, the "class structure" has become based on money. Got money? Then you are automatically "better" then those who have less and must work for you. And with the concept of "inherited wealth", we have seen those who are unfit to lead become able to assume positions of power and influence that they simply would not have gotten in the old tribal days.

We all know about "trust fund" babies, who do nothing, and enjoy an idyllic existence at the expense of others. And we've all seen the ninny with a college education from an "elite" school, paid for by his wealthy parents, who has a senior executive position, when in fact he is fit only for washing dishes or performing some other sort of menial task if we were to assign him work based on his actual abilities.

It's this "unnatural selection", based on the class structure enabled by money, that causes so much resentment and leads to socialist agitation. But socialism feels unnatural as well to many humans, again because of their hierarchical tendencies, and most people just accept that the inequities caused by the meme of capitalism are a burden that must be borne, if society is to continue flourishing.

[tygrkhat40]

Nomadic/primitive cultures had/have hierarchies; alpha male, beta male, etc. Being the alpha may entitle you to more than others, but for the most part, the leaders and the tribe were together.

As man becomes more sophisticated and develops intellectual advances such as writing, religion and currency; one can see how a class-based society develops. If you can write, you have an ability that most others do not, that sets you apart from others. If you are involved with religion, you perform sacred rites and commune with the gods; who may determine who rules the people. And with currency, you have the golden rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.

[Roubignol]

I listened to the analysis of a French Marxist called Francis Cousin.
He said that Karl Marx is one of the author who is the most quoted, but the least read.

And honestly I felt ashamed, because I never read the Capital I, II and III of Karl Marx.
So now I'll try to totally read them. (more 2000 pages. )

I just finished the first chapter of the French translation of the Capital I.

Here is a quote about a fact that I had always been deeply convinced :

(French to English google translated by seems to be ok )

The size of the value of a commodity would therefore remain constant if the working time required to produce it was constant. But the latter changes as soon as there is a change in the productive force of labor. The productive force of labor is determined by many circumstances, among others by the average degree of skill of the workmen, by the level of development of science and its possibilities of technological application, by the social combination of the process of production, by the scale and the operative capacity of the means of production, and by natural data. The same amount of work will be expressed, for example, in 8 bushels of wheat for a good season, and in 4 only for a bad one. The same amount of work provides more metals in the rich deposits than in the poor ones, and so on. Diamonds are rarely found in the upper geological layers, so that to find them, you have to spend a lot of time on average. This means that they represent a lot of work time under a small volume. Jacob doubts that gold has ever paid its full value. This is even more true of diamonds. According to Eschwege, in 1823, the total booty of eighty years of exploitation of diamond deposits in Brazil had not yet reached the price of one and a half years of the average product of Brazilian plantations of sugar cane or coffee, although representing a lot more work, and therefore a lot more value. If the deposits were richer, the same amount of work would be expressed in more diamonds, and their value would fall. And if we succeed in transforming with less work from coal to diamond, its value may fall below that of bricks.

These facts demonstrate that the value of the money is pure bullshit.

Several years ago there was a Radio report on BBC4 about the value of the money.
According to the report, it was said that the most difficult task of the State is to legitimate the real value of the money to their citizens.

Our lifes are runned by a constant lie.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

The noble classes of Aztec society lived in fine stone dwellings, owned fancy clothes and gold jewelry, enjoyed superior food, and had servants to take care of their needs. Versus the poorer sorts of commoners and slaves who lived in hovels and dined on mostly maize cakes and vegetables.

I am pretty sure that it was not members of the Aztec noble class that had their beating hearts ripped from their chests and burned while their corpses rolled down the temple steps. The victims were ritually cannibalized in certain feasts.

Lest we put ourselves on too high a pedestal human sacrifice was a feature of several classical cultures, practiced by the Celts/Druids, and a feature of pre-Christian Viking and Germanic culture. (The Christmas tree is a reminder of the ancient practice of hanging animal and slave sacrifices in sacred trees during the Yule festival.) While not religious in nature, public executions were a popular attraction in Western nations and are still regularly practiced in much of the Third World. I am very sure that offering pay-for-view telecasts of executions would be a real money maker for our governments, particularly if they resumed practices like hanging, drawing and quartering, or the electric chair.

[chris chunt]

Watch Sunday politics on I player if you've got for a great feature on the pros and cons of communism with Peter Hitchens and George Galloway .
Peter Hitchens as usual is absolutely right .

In fact it's on YouTube already !
Here's a snapshot here .
Sorry about all the arrows and stuff .
It's a great little debate .

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

I am pretty sure that it was not members of the Aztec noble class that had their beating hearts ripped from their chests and burned while their corpses rolled down the temple steps. The victims were ritually cannibalized in certain feasts.

Lest we put ourselves on too high a pedestal human sacrifice was a feature of several classical cultures, practiced by the Celts/Druids, and a feature of pre-Christian Viking and Germanic culture. (The Christmas tree is a reminder of the ancient practice of hanging animal and slave sacrifices in sacred trees during the Yule festival.) While not religious in nature, public executions were a popular attraction in Western nations and are still regularly practiced in much of the Third World. I am very sure that offering pay-for-view telecasts of executions would be a real money maker for our governments, particularly if they resumed practices like hanging, drawing and quartering, or the electric chair.

I am sure you are right. Actually, the government could probably fund its huge prison system and stay in the black by sponsoring gladiatorial games among the more violent of the inmates. You wouldn't actually want to be releasing killers as a reward for winning but you could give them private quarters, steak dinners, liquor, access to women and such as an incentive to fight. The costs of this would be offset by the fact that you would no longer have any financial outlays for housing and feeding the losers.

For the less violent offenders, you could offer them early release and/or extra privileges for participating in less lethal but still hazardous contests, as Stephen King did in his novel, "The Running Man". Who wouldn't like to see Anthony Wiener straining his heart on "Treadmill for Bucks"?

Not that I am advocating any of the above, but with Trump in the big chair, hey, it's a possibility. Maybe somebody should suggest the idea to him on Twitter, and see what his response is.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by chris chunt

Watch Sunday politics on I player if you've got for a great feature on the pros and cons of communism with Peter Hitchens and George Galloway .
Peter Hitchens as usual is absolutely right .

In fact it's on YouTube already !
Here's a snapshot here .
Sorry about all the arrows and stuff .
It's a great little debate .

But Galloway is right too. Leninism is dead, but Marxism not.
It seems that Marx understood all the vices of Capitalism, it's just a question of time that this system will collapse, because it doesn't respect ecological ressources and physical laws.

That's probably why Marxism is slowly coming back, because Marx scientifically analysed why the Capitalism was suicidal.

We were "lucky" to live in the slowest slope of the Capitalism.

Originally Posted by Brian249x

I am very sure that offering pay-for-view telecasts of executions would be a real money maker for our governments, particularly if they resumed practices like hanging, drawing and quartering, or the electric chair.

We clearly get vicious members in our species. As I already wrote in another topic, it seems that 5% of the human population is sadist. Then you only need to add the psychopath and the narcissistic pervert ones (who often run our multinationals or our countries) and you understand why it's so difficult to get a fair society.
.