Most opponents of Socialism have said, "Max, that can't work! It failed already in Russia!"
Those people are silly, but wrong. Socialism is part of Karl Marx's history of class struggle theory. Essentially, society moves through specific stage based on which class is in power and how it gets that power. It all began with:
Primitive Communism:
There was no social class at the beginning of our existence as humans. Our ancestors lived in egalitarian tribal environments with no leader at all. Men and women were equal, all produced, and steps were taken to make sure that nobody became more powerful than anyone else. Unfortunately, but with necessity, this dissolved into...
Slavery:
This is not quite the slavery that you learn in American History. Rather, it is where class is determined by birth. Either you are born into power, or you are born a laborer, and there is nothing that you can do to change it. The latter group was oppressed, essentially into slavery, by the former group, thus beginning the class struggle. This gave way thousands of years later to....
Feudalism:
This is with the kings, queens, serfs, and peasants. Power comes from a Divine being, so kings rule because God (or Allah, or whoever) told them that they were supposed to rule. These people did very little work and oppressed the serfs, and peasants, as well as the emerging bourgeois middle class (merchants, usually). Eventually, during the Industrial Revolutions, the bourgeois took power, forming....
Capitalism:
Finally, you have the ability to change your social class, however, it is very difficult. Class is determined by wealth, specifically whether or not you "own the means of production." This stratifies class into bourgeois and proletariat: those that prosper from work, and those that work. This system allows for super production, being able to actually provide for everyone, but establishing things like "cost," thus reducing many previously social relationships into mere money relationships (more on that at a later date, perhaps). According to Marx, and what I'll talk about later, the proletariat will rise up, abolishing class through violent revolution, forming....
Socialism:
Free of class. Free of property. Free of oppression. Just, free. This is the penultimate stage of history where government begins to phase out, and people begin to get back to their Primitive Communist roots, but with all the technological advancements. Eventually, government goes away, bringing about....
Communism:
I will discuss this next time.
Like before, any questions, comments, or concerns belong in the COMMENTS area.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Can you more in depth explain primitive communism and how exactly it dissolved into slavery?
ReplyDeleteAlright. Primitive Communism was the egalitarian tribes of homo sapiens before class actually became defined by anything. These are those hunter-gatherer type people who practiced the "insulting the meat" technique to maintain equality. However, and as you could probably imagine, hunter-gathering wasn't a very good method of providing for a group when no animals or plants were around due to, say, a small ice age. As a result, you can no longer afford to maintain equality (as survival is more important at that point), so the more fit begin subjugating the less fit and forcing them to build residencies and to acquire various foods, while the more fit now is in control of the society. Before long, that subjugated group is viewed in terms of "lacking freedom," while the more fit group, being more capable of survival, maintains it freedom by any means necessary. Eventually, this dissolves into class determination by birth, as it is the simplest means of a stratified class system. If you're born from a slave, you'll be a slave. (Of course, slavery here has a different connotation that the slavery the Europe had in the 1400s-1800s. Technically, that occurs during Feudalism.)
ReplyDeleteSo you admit struggle to survive could break down a communist system?
ReplyDeleteNo. Struggle to survive can only break down the EXTREMELY underdeveloped society of Primitive Communism. To compare society of 40,000 years ago to Communism of 300-500 years from now on any scale but classlessness is absurd. Technology and the Capitalist Industrial Revolution that initiated it allow for the overproduction of pretty much any necessity, essentially sheltering mankind from the struggle of survival. What happened to the previous system is impossible in the future system.
ReplyDeleteThis is a joke right?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not a joke. I understand (from your profile) that you were an American soldier in Vietnam. So was my grandfather, actually. Because this is a bit out of my comfort zone, I'll wait for you to initiate argument, if that's alright with you.
ReplyDeleteAlthough industrialization would provide more goods, human population growth would eventually catch up. When it does people will revert back to looking out for their own survival.
ReplyDeleteThis goes back to another point made against communism. There is no incentive for scientific innovation. You say that the incentive is "to work toward the collective good of humanity", but peoples' minds don't work that way. We look out for ourselves; if joining with other people helps then we do, but if it becomes a detriment we will abandon it (as with the fall of primitive communism).
In capitalism, scientific innovation is rewarded. If you invent something new that people like, then you will make money and so on..
So if population growth began to stretch our productive capability, there wouldn't be an accompanying push for scientific innovation, because those scientists would be less concerned with helping all of humanity, and would be more concerned with helping themselves stay alive.
So the basic problem I have with communist theory is that it requires the restructuring of the way we think. I know I'm only 16, and I shouldn't be this cynacal, but people will NEVER all be virtuous, hard-working, and content with just what they have.
Ah... Scientific innovation has no incentive in Communism, eh? Well, scientific innovation has never really needed incentive. Prime examples can be found before America became the Capitalist monstrosity that it is today. Inventors like Alexander Graham-Bell, Thomas Edison, and Nicolai Tesla (not all American) didn't need money or fame to invent their phonographs, light bulbs, or coils. Mr. Ford required no incentive for the creation of the automobile, and Mr. Einstein required no reward for his work on atomic theory. You see, as long as humanity is curious, there will always be inventors, and incentive is therefore not necessary. The patent has served well enough this far.
ReplyDeleteCan you remember a time long ago when you wanted a different career than you do now? Did you decide against that original career because you couldn't afford it, or because it no longer interested you? In my case, I turned down any desire to be a lawyer, someone that makes a lot of money for doing nothing, for the dream of being a nuclear engineer, so that I can innovate the energy technology and bring mankind into the future. My recent choice can never hope to make the same quantity of money as my original choice. This is simply one example as to how incentive is not really necessary in terms of occupation. People will always want to be scientists, doctors, salesmen, engineers, etc. Just because they are all set equal to each other does not lower the probability or percentage of potential workers of those respective fields by any marginal degree. It's all in human interest. Heck, Socialism concentrates the working masses to hyperproduce, allowing for an abundance of resources for distribution and stockpile. Additionally, at the rate of population growth and the equal distribution of property in a Socialist world, overpopulation would be slightly less of a problem, as the population density would be approximately equal throughout the world (as compared to extreme density and extreme lack of density in many places). With the closest possible revolution not being until the end of our lives, technology will certainly house a man on Mars, will certainly create Space Station housing, and will certainly be able to produce more from less. I seriously doubt that, with the current rate of technological advance, starvation, famine, and overpopulation would be anything less than a long-term problem.
Finally, people will become more virtuous, hard-working, and content. If you ever get the chance, you should watch two particular documentaries: 10 Questions for the Dalai Lama (should answer the content and virtuous parts), and Commune (for the hard-working aspect).
How greed Is in human nature...
ReplyDelete1. As I said before one basic component of our nature is to survive, I don't think that can be disputed.
2. Then to survive we try to accumulate as much of each necessity of life as we can. We will never be completely content or secure in just having the bare minimum.
How laziness is in human nature...
1. Because we want to survive, we try to accumulate as much of life's necessities as we can.
2.We don't WANT to struggle to survive
3.Work is just what we have to do to survive whether it be ancient man searching for food, or a laborer today, earning his wages.
4.Work is required to survive.
So we don't like work, because work is our struggle to survive. Thus we are greedy, in that we try to accumulate goods so we don't have to work, and can also live comfortably.
Your system requires us to be content and secure in having the same as everyone else, and also having to constantly work and struggle to survive (and don't kid yourself there will be PLENTY of struggle). The negative connotation of work won't change either, because not everybody will get a job they like. Many will get job's they hate doing, and as they now have to supply more people, their jobs would get even harder.
Capitalism's incentive to work harder is the eventual prospect (although not always achieved) that you can live a struggle free life.
(Once again, I'm sorry for the lack of organization if it's a problem)
Oh and one more thing (just for my convinience with my tiny and tired brain). Could you make your answers a little more concise, or change the text color, because my brain hurts reading your posts...
ReplyDeleteGreed:
ReplyDelete1. Logically, if the issue of survival is not at hand, then greed for survival will not exist.
2. The greediest people in America are the richest, not the poorest. If survival were the case, wouldn't it be the other way around.
3. In India, the happiest people are the people with the bare minimum. They do not have to worry about so much, because they do not have much to lose. As the Dalai Lama said, "The rich, they are very poor mentally... but the poor, who do not worry about everything they have or can lose, are very rich mentally."
Laziness:
1. Again, if survival is not an issue, because all of life's necessities are provided, than we don't need to struggle to survive.
2. If the requirements to live contently are to work for 8 hrs/day, 5 days/week, I'm pretty sure that everyone would work.
2b. Therefore, the "struggle" for survival boils down to simply working. Without work, food is not produced, and without food, people starve. It's very simple and effective.
We don't enjoy work because, in our Capitalist system, work is, in itself, a struggle to survive. You have people who must hold down two jobs, and will still be in poverty, while others have to sign a paper every week. It's the class differences that spur jealousy. In an equal society with a productive-distributive economy, there'd be no struggle of survival, as, again, work is the only requirement for distribution, so this greed and laziness is eliminated. This is not me kidding myself, it is the most likely alternative (believe me, I've thought a good deal on this). In addition, unemployment would cease to exist, for the biggest flaw in the American Welfare State is that those who don't work can still eat (rich or poor).
As for the negative connotation accompanying work, this will dissapear as well. If you are comparing starvation to a content life, with the only difference being whether or not you decided to work, work itself becomes a simple matter. In today's society, work is negatively noted because of unkind bosses, or low pay, or long hours, or no stimulation, not because of work itself. You would not see this in a Socialist world. Bosses are elected, so being a hard-ass would be grounds for your removal. Capital is equalized and ultimately ceases to exist. Hours are regulated, with between 40 and 50 required per week (except for vacation). Work would change from a non-stimulating environment created by people who will never involve themselves in it for 15 minutes (Capitalists), to an involved environment to suit the needs of the workers as they are in charge.
Finally, Capitalism's "incentive" is utter bullcrap. It's a lull of nonesense. You can work hard for all of your life and you will likely never change classes (except in a negative way) or escape the ultimate strugge thereof. Now, that's no reason not to work, but it is certainly something to consider. Your employer tells you (or someone who will tell you) that hard work will equal great rewards, but in actuality, this is just a tactic to increase your production or performance. In a workplace of 5000, only around 20 will actually reieve substantial promotions.
I'll do my best to increase the readability from henceforth.