Discussing the Discourse - Question Format Recommended

[Dodes]

The upper class want to remain in power, currently they do so by controlling wealth.

The upper class is not a monolithic collective and anyone can theoretically get there.
What are their individual concerns? What do these people really want except to hold on to their gains (as everyone else does too)?

I agree that the upper class, and the other classes as well, are not monlithic collectives. This is why communism has developed the concept of class consciousness. For example, a class conscious bourgeois (upper class) would be the epitome of Scrouge McDuck. Being class conscious does not indicate that you are more intelligent or are even have a certain morality, rather you are aware of class warfare and are engaging in the interest of your own class.

The individual concerns and wants of the upper class are not universal, nor are the concerns and wants of other members of other classes.

When the basis comes down to it, the members of the upper class are not the enemies, rather the upper class as an aspect of society is the enemy, though the perpetration of this aspect is only allowed by members of all classes.

Because of this opinion, this is why left communism refrains from violence.

 

[Mage246]

Let me get this straight:

For several posts now you have claimed that there is no criticism in what I have said, and now you admit that there is a criticism, but you refuse to answer it due to my response to your repeated claims that there is no criticism? This is a farce, and you should feel ashamed of yourself for perpetuating it.

The first two posts I did not realize you wanted me to go in-depth as you made simple statements that got simple replies.

You're grabbing at straws of reasons to justify that I'm an idiot who can't comprehend on the level of THE MIGHTY AND ALL POWERFUL MAGE.

And now you're shaming me and you've yet to address the actual problem here.

Now I know you don't even realize it, but you're being as bad as godfrey used to be.

If my statement was so simple, why have you repeatedly failed to address it? You are the instigator of this charade, not me.

 

[Dodes]

If I am indeed the instigator, why won't you just ask the, even any, question? 

You could ask me about ponies for all I care!

Honestly I'm just placing bets on if you are actually this difficult in real life to talk to, or if you're just being difficult on purpose because you don't like me or because you just hate any mention of communism.

 

[Mage246]

Go back to the beginning if you want to answer a question. I will not restate a critique that I have already made just because you have refused to answer it. Again: read what I first said. Critiques need not be followed with a question mark.

 

[Dodes]

Okay, now I literally burst out a laugh that you still haven't made a question, even a silly one!

I do have to commend you (if you aren't just trolling for lack of a better word) that you have such strong principles regarding not asking questions when critiquing.

What do you want me to put a big sign at the beginning of the thread with bold red words that says "Please put critiques in the form of a question"?

I am just astonished and saddened that you are being this difficult for no valid justification while I know that you're perfectly competent of not just forming a critique as a question, but you actually have valid debate material!

 

[Mage246]

Why would I have to put critiques in bold red with a question mark? Are you completely incapable of understanding a plain criticism? I am just astonished and saddened that I have to point out something this obvious, since I have essentially pointing it out already. And yet, you have been so defensive about this whole subject that you have completely failed to see the question that I have asked, so you have *forced* me to ask it again, even more explicitly. There is nothing I detest more in the world than being forced to repeat myself, and yet I shall do so for your meager sake.

People always recognize, for better or worse, that there are those who are their intellectual or social superiors.

Thank you for completely failing to address how communism addresses the problem of people selecting those who are their intellectual and social superiors to rule over them without any effective oversight or controls.

More like: "the communists are lazy and stupid, and those who aren't will always be outnumbered by those who are".

Communists follow the same pattern as the general populace when it comes to selecting their leaders (which makes sense since they claim to represent the general populace).

So, if the question is not already obvious, how do communists select their leaders in a way that is not as flawed as other systems? Or do you just assume that their leaders are less flawed, without any evidence? Or do you assume that their leaders are easier to replace, without evidence? Etc, etc. The problem of leadership has always been how you identify and remove corrupt leaders, not how you choose the electorate. Even the most selfish feudal lord does not wish to be ruled by a tyrant, and yet he may unintentionally find himself in that circumstance.

 

[Dodes]

Why would I have to put critiques in bold red with a question mark? Are you completely incapable of understanding a plain criticism? I am just astonished and saddened that I have to point out something this obvious, since I have essentially pointing it out already. And yet, you have been so defensive about this whole subject that you have completely failed to see the question that I have asked, so you have *forced* me to ask it again, even more explicitly. There is nothing I detest more in the world than being forced to repeat myself, and yet I shall do so for your meager sake.

Oh my, even though I have walked through the valley of death, I have been pitied on the wise and powerful master! Hallelujah! Completely missing the point, but I have given up on that by now, let's just put it behind us and move forward, though it was fun while it lasted. Mercy me the fires of damnation were hot.

So, if the question is not already obvious, how do communists select their leaders in a way that is not as flawed as other systems? Or do you just assume that their leaders are less flawed, without any evidence? Or do you assume that their leaders are easier to replace, without evidence? Etc, etc. The problem of leadership has always been how you identify and remove corrupt leaders, not how you choose the electorate. Even the most selfish feudal lord does not wish to be ruled by a tyrant, and yet he may unintentionally find himself in that circumstance.

Okay, finally, the good stuff.

Now of course communism does not simply assume that communist leaders are at their core better than any given leader, the communists who did were proven false - and sometimes paid for it in not just blood, but their own - and the communists who still do are proven false by history - every political movement has their slow learners if you know what I mean.

There are a couple main points regarding this and some are far more important than others. Instead of going willy-nilly listing I'll just list the more important ones first. Also, I'll leave these open ended instead of going in-depth to allow you to point out the fundamental flaws - which in turn then I will counter or concede.

But before going forward with this, I do feel the need to point out that communism is not necessarily the end - much the same way monarchies being replaced with republics were not the end, but were thought to be at their creation. Rather communism at its core is the further of democratization, or put simply "power to the people", a concept that many democratic republics today are still founded upon.

The creation of a just republic is flawed if it only guarantees the absolute political rights of its citizens. The bourgeois adapted - the trait that makes humans dominant and far-reaching - by instead of directly ruling the republic - although this was not always the case - they would influence the republics' governments by using their monopolization of wealth to - directly or indirectly - bribe or "incentivize" officials. Officials would then promote policies beneficial to the monopolies of wealth and a vicious cycle ensued as the bourgeois became the bourgeois. To put simply, the first major step of democracy had started a linear progression towards abolishing political dictatorship but had failed to start a linear progression towards abolishing economic dictatorship. Due to this, the linear progression towards political democracy stalled - and even reversed at some points - as the economic dictatorship solidified and started to feed into the progression of political democratization, which then resulted in "tumors" of proxy officials that owed the beginning bourgeois.

But that doesn't address the problem of previous communist movements, in hindsight it was extremely flawed. The logic was that the only way to create an economic democracy was to create a political dictatorship. So really all Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism did was flip the sides, why this was far more disastrous was because while the political control of the economic was absolute - rather than a non-absolute control of the political by the economic that was present under the capitalist states.

So yes, communism - so far - has been a reversal of the relationship between the economic and the political and had actually reversed the progress that early republics had created. In short, the current capitalist system was favorable to the former communist system that had been created to fix the flaws of the current capitalist system.

So while this gives a good historical context, it doesn't answer the question directly but does lay the groundwork to do so. Communists, in actuality, don't improve upon the fundamental foundation that republics gave for their answer to how leaders are chosen, they do additionally though believe that further decentralization is needed to assist in choosing the right leaders for a republic.

So that's the simplistic answer to the question and I eagerly await your counter. There's a multitude of factors that can be gone more in-depth with this and I believe this is a good starting point to launch from.

 

[Mad Vader]

The upper class want to remain in power, currently they do so by controlling wealth.

The upper class is not a monolithic collective and anyone can theoretically get there.
What are their individual concerns? What do these people really want except to hold on to their gains (as everyone else does too)?

I agree that the upper class, and the other classes as well, are not monlithic collectives. This is why communism has developed the concept of class consciousness. For example, a class conscious bourgeois (upper class) would be the epitome of Scrouge McDuck. Being class conscious does not indicate that you are more intelligent or are even have a certain morality, rather you are aware of class warfare and are engaging in the interest of your own class.

The individual concerns and wants of the upper class are not universal, nor are the concerns and wants of other members of other classes.

That's messed up. Have you ever talked to an upper class person?
It goes to show you don't know much about them as you immediately turn to communist definitions removed from reality. Class warfare is not what they are about at all, but rather a minor side-effect of their motivation and behavior.
You need to learn about your enemy beyond the confines of a rigid one-dimensional doctrine. Then you shall be enlightened. No, really.

When the basis comes down to it, the members of the upper class are not the enemies, rather the upper class as an aspect of society is the enemy, though the perpetration of this aspect is only allowed by members of all classes.

Because of this opinion, this is why left communism refrains from violence.

You certainly don't view them as human beings very similar to yourself.
Being "generous" and saying "well, I don't want to kill them or imprison them, I'll only take their wealth" does not make you a better person.

 

[Dodes]

That's messed up. Have you ever talked to an upper class person?
It goes to show you don't know much about them as you immediately turn to communist definitions removed from reality. Class warfare is not what they are about at all, but rather a minor side-effect of their motivation and behavior.
You need to learn about your enemy beyond the confines of a rigid one-dimensional doctrine. Then you shall be enlightened. No, really.

Most of the population has very little contact to bourgeois, I've talked to petty bourgeois sure, but actual bourgeois themselves? Are you saying you have? I think I'd be rather interesting to have some sort of data in regards to how much contact the general population has with any bourgeois. "Upper class" can be construed so much that it can be regarded as "anyone with more money than you". You've also completely missed the point, did you even read what I said? I didn't even say that class warfare encompasses the mind of the wealthy 24/7, most aren't even class conscious, let alone believe that class warfare is a valid concept. Are you trying to criminalize me here or something? Because it seems like you're putting words in my mouth for me. Also if I'm trapped in the confines of a "rigid one-dimensional" doctrine, then tell me how I'm wrong with valid evidence, you may as well have said "you're dumb", "you have no idea what you are talking about", etc.. If you are insistent that my view is some rigid caste that doesn't falter for outside views, why don't you test it by actually presenting outside views.

You certainly don't view them as human beings very similar to yourself.
Being "generous" and saying "well, I don't want to kill them or imprison them, I'll only take their wealth" does not make you a better person.

Again, putting words in my mouth. I view all humans as - shocker - humans. The whole point of me saying I'm not advocating violence is because so many people have the assumption that communism is nothing but violence against the upperclass, then in turn, violence against any "enemy of the state". Oh but I guess I'm just a dirty thief with all my other communist buddies because "I'll take their wealth". So you've managed to accept that communists - or at least myself as a communist - aren't crazed psycho-murderers, but instead they're greedy pickpockets running around taking what they want?



You attitude and tone have completely changed with this post, it's like I'm not even talking to the same person as before. I don't know what I've said to upset you or what caused you to become passive-aggressive all of a sudden. If there's something I've done, I'm sorry, if I'm somehow misconstruing what you're saying, I'm sorry - if so, you should read what you wrote - but I would appreciate it if instead of just making blatancies of "that's wrong" or "you're wrong" with a little more finesse, you'd actually give a proper counterargument that could be called debating.

 

[Mad Vader]

That's messed up. Have you ever talked to an upper class person?
It goes to show you don't know much about them as you immediately turn to communist definitions removed from reality. Class warfare is not what they are about at all, but rather a minor side-effect of their motivation and behavior.
You need to learn about your enemy beyond the confines of a rigid one-dimensional doctrine. Then you shall be enlightened. No, really.

Most of the population has very little contact to bourgeois, I've talked to petty bourgeois sure, but actual bourgeois themselves? Are you saying you have? I think I'd be rather interesting to have some sort of data in regards to how much contact the general population has with any bourgeois.

See, there's your problem. Talk to these people before judging them purely on doctrinal grounds or you'll remain simply regurgitating old dogmas without any actual knowledge. Do you also believe rumors about people you don't know?
I know many people that can be said to be "bourgeois" and maybe I am as well, for all you know. I can also see their complex roles in the society more clearly. They are not one-sided villains from a communist cartoon.

"Upper class" can be construed so much that it can be regarded as "anyone with more money than you". You've also completely missed the point, did you even read what I said? I didn't even say that class warfare encompasses the mind of the wealthy 24/7, most aren't even class conscious, let alone believe that class warfare is a valid concept. Are you trying to criminalize me here or something? Because it seems like you're putting words in my mouth for me. Also if I'm trapped in the confines of a "rigid one-dimensional" doctrine, then tell me how I'm wrong with valid evidence, you may as well have said "you're dumb", "you have no idea what you are talking about", etc.. If you are insistent that my view is some rigid caste that doesn't falter for outside views, why don't you test it by actually presenting outside views.

Yes, the gist of it is "you have no idea what you are talking about". I'm merely condescending and don't actually try to teach you about the complexities of the upper classes, just warning you of lack of knowledge.

You certainly don't view them as human beings very similar to yourself.
Being "generous" and saying "well, I don't want to kill them or imprison them, I'll only take their wealth" does not make you a better person.

Again, putting words in my mouth. I view all humans as - shocker - humans. The whole point of me saying I'm not advocating violence is because so many people have the assumption that communism is nothing but violence against the upperclass, then in turn, violence against any "enemy of the state". Oh but I guess I'm just a dirty thief with all my other communist buddies because "I'll take their wealth". So you've managed to accept that communists - or at least myself as a communist - aren't crazed psycho-murderers, but instead they're greedy pickpockets running around taking what they want?

Making progress, you admit the enemy are human.
Yes, you are a thief and not a murderer. I know communists are not monsters, I was born under a communist regime and bear no grudge or hold silly Cold War prejudices like your average US Joe.
As for your thieving ways, why not start a small business instead and gain your own goddamn means of production? Sitting on your butt all day and debating ways to get other people's wealth is far less credible.

You attitude and tone have completely changed with this post, it's like I'm not even talking to the same person as before. I don't know what I've said to upset you or what caused you to become passive-aggressive all of a sudden. If there's something I've done, I'm sorry, if I'm somehow misconstruing what you're saying, I'm sorry - if so, you should read what you wrote - but I would appreciate it if instead of just making blatancies of "that's wrong" or "you're wrong" with a little more finesse, you'd actually give a proper counterargument that could be called debating.

Hey, I'm not Mage and being stubborn and dismissive because I didn't eat a cookie (actually, it's more complex than that, think of Mage as a disappointed, bitter ex-socialist whose dreams of egalitarianism were cruelly shattered).
Me, I'm just condescending in a well-meaning paternalistic way. And that's the way you like it.

 

[Suspicous Pilgrim]

How can communism affectively exist in a democratic society? What would happen if the people decided to vote in a capitalist?

 

[Bromden]

How does that peaceful turning to communism works? How can you make the wealthy and powerful give up their wealth and power without hanging them on lampposts? How can you make the new communist leaders not to become wealthy and powerful on the plebs' expense?

 

[Mad Vader]

Since Dodes is neglecting his duties to the working class, let me give my best Dodes impression.

How does that peaceful turning to communism works?

By the voting power of the newly-enlightened masses organized by a resurgent Communist party. The trick is not to allow the bourgeois to divide and brainwash the prollies to vote with them.
The working class can take power simply by majority vote, especially in places where's a thin middle class or in an economic downturn when the middle class is weakened and scared.

How can you make the wealthy and powerful give up their wealth and power without hanging them on lampposts?

By voting for wealth-redistribution measures, vigorous public discourse aimed at persuading the rich kids to break ranks and re-education of the lost causes in, um, special camps.

How can you make the new communist leaders not to become wealthy and powerful on the plebs' expense?

Mandatory brain surgery, castration if applicable and medication for all leadership candidates.
Ultimately replacing the fallible human leadership with a Communist AI when technology allows.

 

[Bromden]

If that's true, I'm in. I'll wait for Dodes' reply before I decide, though.

 

[Dodes]

Huh weird, my last reply did not get posted to MadVader. All this time I thought people had just stopped posting. Either my internet or taleworlds dropped the ball on that. Though it's probably because I'm too reliant on "show new replies".

How can communism affectively exist in a democratic society? What would happen if the people decided to vote in a capitalist?

There wouldn't be anything outlawing such a happening, though it would not logically make sense. If you've established a system in which people want to vote capitalists in, you've done something wrong. Translated to communist rhetoric, you've failed to establish class consciousness among the proletariat, or at least a lasting consciousness that continued past revolution. Comparatively today, it would be like us today voting in a monarchist or more so a non-parliamentary monarchist.

How does that peaceful turning to communism works? How can you make the wealthy and powerful give up their wealth and power without hanging them on lampposts? How can you make the new communist leaders not to become wealthy and powerful on the plebs' expense?

Well "can communism be peaceful" is the biggest debate among communists themselves. While there are pacifists, they are a minority among left communists - who are in turn the smaller faction of the two. Even beyond the two factions  of left and right, there is another faction divide which is reformation or revolutionary, though reformationists tend to be people who do not label themselves as "communists" but instead call themselves socialists and don't recognize a divide between left and right among communists. It's really gotten convoluted as communism and socialism have been twisted in their definitions, now more than ever since the Cold War and liberals pushing "socialism" when really it's Keynesian economic thought that is nowhere near "processes towards communism".

But that's failed to answer your question, just has given some background. The idea of leftist revolutionary communism - which I advocate - is not pacifism but rather crippling profit ventures by organization of manpower. It's along the idea of the "Occupy Movement" but I really hate to compare it to that because it does so many things wrong and I best describe its members as liberals wearing Che Guevara t-shirts. They don't like capitalism, but they don't like communism, so they want an in-between that they call socialism, which may very well be worse than either as it mixes fundamental contradictions between the two. Though to initiate this using violence is completely misguided and refutes the whole purpose.

For your next question I feel I need to contrast private vs personal property. Communists universally are about seizing private property - the means of production - rather than personal property - the profit from the means of production. Though this line is skewed as many communists see control of private property as a direct correlation to the gap between the proletariat's and the bourgeois's private property and thus feel justified stealing private property as well. As I have analyzed it that is a line that when crossed, the communists become as bad as who they see as oppressors, additionally the definition of who you can seize personal property from never ends and soon becomes "any enemy of the state" and then post-revolution you have a Stalin. Lamen's terms: Communists - if successful and done in a left communist manner- will steal private property but not personal. Of course that is going to have a lot of problems - I've heard plenty of criticism from such practice from my rightist comrades - but communism has always been about doing things the hard way instead of the easy way and not flinching on what has been set out to be done. If you like I can elaborate on what should be done to prevent post-revolution bourgeois from using their preexisting wealth to re-implement a capitalist system and how it will be enforced to prevent communists from crossing the line of private property into personal property.

Third and last question. I like this question personally because it's my overwhelming criticism of rightist communists. Unfortunately I've previously elaborated so I think I should keep it short, though I can elaborate further. The idea is that when a new system of governance is implemented, within a new constitution/social contract it shall be clearly defined and stated on how the political spectrum can influence the economic one and vice versa. This is what I was saying before along the lines of "establishing a political dictatorship to establish an economic democracy is worse than the current economic dictatorship heavily influencing the current political democracy".

 

[Bromden]

This way you are crippling the economy and give the control to incompetent and/or inexperienced people. This will cause more than a minor disturbance in the force. And the wealthy won't give a hoot about the definition of private and personal property, they still will do everything to keep what's theirs. That will also cause a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth. It's still not clear how the new leaders won't become the new burgeois. And the whole thing is waaay too complicated for the masses.

 

[Dodes]

This way you are crippling the economy and give the control to incompetent and/or inexperienced people.

If we followed this principle throughout history, nobles would be running every profession which garners power and we'd still be in a caste system. Throughout the history of class struggle more power has been given to the people, but in doing so they have indeed been incompetent and/or inexperienced with it, whether it be political, economic, or military power. Yet throughout, the power that has been given to more and more common people eventually created skilled management to the extent where a new misconception is created that mirrors the old one (which is the implication you made with this statement).

And the wealthy won't give a hoot about the definition of private and personal property, they still will do everything to keep what's theirs.

Absolutely. You thought communism was about asking nicely?

It's still not clear how the new leaders won't become the new burgeois.

Please elaborate your concerns/critiques.

And the whole thing is waaay too complicated for the masses.

The same thing was said to peasantry of feudal society about republics themselves, yet today republics and representation are so commonplace that's it is now a given that this system is a requirement for contemporary development.



It seems like all your concerns are that humans won't adapt, which is what humanity excels at doing. Ironically adaption is also our greatest weakness as it feeds complacency and misconceptions of "What is given is good" or "This is the best it is going to get".

 

[Bromden]

What I want to know is, how do you achieve that the new leadership won't become rich and powerful.

 

[Dodes]

What I want to know is, how do you achieve that the new leadership won't become rich and powerful.

Just to clarify: Do you mean those in representative government? Or those that would control the means of production? What I was saying earlier was that one feeds into the other and thus power/influence can be garnered either directly with politics or indirectly with economics.

 

[Bromden]

I mean both or any of them. How do you stop the new leaders to use their power to become more powerful?