Why don't we have a communist society yet? I mean we could.

Are you even trying at this point? Seriously your attempts at trolling have been better in the past.
 
the-labyrinth-david-bowie.gif
 
Hmmm, on a god-awful-scale, it does rank quite high - but I maintain, Dancing in the street is the worst. I think it's Mick Jagger's abhorrent crime of a shirt.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Before someone gets an aneurism, I am talking about 'utopian' communism and not socialism here. You know, actually what Marx talked about and not what individuals like Lenin or the Paris Commune made out of it.



What I am thinking about in particular, is this part of communism:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

>>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; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs![1][3][4]<<

It's an interesting idea, at the very least. One that was never as close to becoming a reality, than today.

I am thinking here for the most part about two technological evolutions that we can see on the horizon, namely digitalisation and automatition. In the 1920s certain economists claimed that we would have today a 20 hour work week, based on how producivity has increased just in their life time and how mass production and the modern industry made it possible to pretty much manufacture every day goods and products at a very cheap and affordable price. Going from this, some thought that in the distant future, with better technology and productivty, pretty much everyone would have everything they need for almost nothing and pretty much everyone will only work a few hours at most per day. It didn't make sense for them, to produce more, than you really needed.

Well, what's the reality today? Most people have 40-50 hour jobs and we're living in a society of abundance, yet the inequality has never been greater in human history as it is today. So what happend? It seems like the development of wages was at some point not in relation with productivty anymore, while productivity has gone up, wages havn't. The wages in totall have incresed, but in relation to productivity. The reason is relatively simple, most of the profit that is earned, is not shared among those that actually generate it. Our current generation is facing a serious issue of wealth distribution. I am not bitching about 'The Rich' here, as they are just a part of a larger global economic system that's simply rewarding the accumulation of wealth trough interests for example, effect of compound interest in particular as it has an accelerating impact. More products have to be sold in a shorter time frame for smaller costs, to generate the profit in order to cover the increasing interests. And this, effects everyone, even if you're not working for a large company, but you're still feeling the increase in living expenses for example.

However, I believe that we're right now on the verge of a 4th industrial revolution. The first industrial revolution, was kick started by the steam engine and the following development, a society that created an entirely new class, the labouring class. The second revolution, was about mass production and the petrochemical industries, which found its peak in the gruesome trenches of the first world war. The third revolution, was the electronical age, which gave birth to computers, semi-conductors and complex machinery. All those revolutions had, sometimes more sometimess less, severe impacts on our societies. But in the end, even trough all the troubles that might have been caused, it meant an improvement in the long run.

Now, the 4th revolution which is happening right now, has the same potential to really shake up our societies, the digitalisation and new wave of automatition. Not only does it seem to increase productivity again, but it might also mean that human labour will become needless in many areas, areas where automatition was deemed impossible and we can actually see this already happening today. There are whole computer progams developed by high tech companies like IBM, with the intention to replace lawyers, doctors and the like. But some programms are already in use today, programms that write articles, songs and more. Pretty much every work that can be replaced by some kind of algorithm, is very likey to be effected by this evolution. The difference this time however seems to be, that we're not experiencing the creation of new markets, not in the same way as it happend with the first industrial revoltion for example. The whole point of this revolution, is to replace human labour, when ever possible. Particularly in blue collour jobs, and those industries, where labour is very expensive and expendable. In some industries, labour makes up between 30 and 40% of the costs. The middle class, could be hit the hardest from this, as their wages are high enough to actually make their replacement a real goal.

So what does this mean for society? It might forces us to actually tackle the issue of wealth, how it's generated and how it's distributed within our societies. We might actually see the end of the meritocracy, as society might have to re-define the idea of labour, labour as a need to cover your expenses. Maybe there will be a need to revaluate cases where people do not work, work in the sense where they peform a job, that's yielding an income. There are many positions in our society that have no salary or wage. Beeing a mother, caring for your siblings, for sick family members, doing charity work, or simply following your hobbies. People will have to find new ways to define themself, that is not tied to a job.

I am not saying this has to lead to a communist society, but I wouldn't be surprised if it actually was really the closest it could come to. In terms of labour at least, governance is a whole different topic!
Click to expand...


 
Crni Vuk said:
Click to expand...

Manchin’s approval rating went up in WV when he opposed child tax credits and infrastructure bills that were either national or would benefit people in the state.

Farmer’s were hit the hardest under Trump with the Chinese trade war, failure to address anti repair laws, etc. Under the current admin their profits are back up and anti repair bills are being curbed. Most people in agriculture still vote Republican and have high approval rating of Trump vs any Dem.

You may actually get voted out as a dem if you’re effective at helping people if the state is a swing state, let alone a red one like WV. Dems tend to be more critical of their party and Republicans less so. The battle is pitched and will remain pitched. In the end a lot of these people have only themselves to blame. Too bad for them. :shrug:
 
A lot of people have the "Why should I bother if it doesn't hit me personaly?" mindset. Even among Democrats. It's just that Republicans tend to be more extrem here. Particularly the Dems that see themself as "liberal" with a somewhat higher income where they will never stop yelping about discrimination here sexism there but won't even look at people living in poverty not realising how much poverty actually hits marginalised groups in particular. The truth is that many of them are just as blind to the widening gab and social inequality that's growing in the united states while also not realising how much this actually hurts the economy as a whole. Because you can hammer down on "personal responsibility" all you want ... but at the end of the day no one's living just for themself. As cicero alrady said, not for ourselves alone are we born.
 
We can both sides the issue if we want, but at the end of the day who is voting against their interests? I don’t know Crni, when you send part of your stim checks to family only to find out they voted against the child tax credit when they are poor and have kids it changes your perspective. Then magnify that to most of the state and you realize these people have themselves to blame. Personal responsibility comes into it at some point.

If you’re in the poorest state (especially with kids) and vote against yourself getting assistance there’s very little that can be done for you.
You can lead a horse to water….
 
Voting doesn't matter. Carlin was right. It's why all of the old people like my grand parents are jaded. They know.
 
Also, all of these communists trying to overthrow the united states are really just capitalists who want to switch the game on us.
 
Hoarse D. Wormer said:
Also, all of these communists trying to overthrow the united states are really just capitalists who want to switch the game on us.
Click to expand...

I need you all to be clear - because I see a lot of people accusing capitalism of being communism, and vice versa:
Are you guys generally in favor of - free markets, and commercial public amenities?
Or are you more in favor of restricted markets, and tax-based public amenities?

Because, whichever one you pick - stick with it, and never mind what it is called, right? The names seem to cause a lot of confusion. This is why I personally don't do names, because people always want to get very specific about it. Stick with the actual tenets of your ideal political system, regardless of name, right?

Personally, I am more of a restricted markets, tax-based amenities sort of guy, WHATEVER you call it. If you call it "capitalism", then I am for capitalism.
 
I'm with the guy who knows that it's all a bunch of shit-pipes and theirs clogs in the shitpipes so we can reroute the shit in some of the pipes easy if we find the right area of the shit pipe that has the shitclog.
 
Okay, let's try a different approach:

Do you most prefer when things are good?
Or when things are bad?
 
Morgan_ said:
If you’re in the poorest state (especially with kids) and vote against yourself getting assistance there’s very little that can be done for you.
You can lead a horse to water….
Click to expand...
You forget that those decisions happen with a certain context and narrative behind it. I mean you're right. A lot of people vote against their own interests. But they are doing it with the perception that it will lead to improvements for them. Even if it doesn't. Because there is a story to it that people have been told and voters are not single minded as well. So there are many issues that influence the decision.

Just one example to illustrate what I am talking about. They had a survey about the affordable care act where approval droped substantially among the respondents when they asked them if they support "Obamacare" instead of the affordable care act. Which are pretty much the same.

I mean it is what it is. And the only thing you can really do is trying to engage with voters. Trying to inform and explain policies better. A lot is about communication. And with social media probably more than ever.
 
Super abundance an gluts should cause food price to fall ( if money was still used ). Hyper production whether through technique/technology and or robotics would reduce the amount of hours worked in producing goods. Assembly lines do not have to belong to the BIG bourgeoise bandits. Only under capitalism the doubters talk about greed. In an ordered more chilled society human greed would plummet. If the last 100 years would have been communist by it's nature there would have been no arms race and far less Imperialist WAR. It is NOT a minimum wage people should scream for it should be a ceiling a limit to what individuals payed themselves, or if a biggish state still existed certain industries such as BIG PHARMA would produce, invest and develop without having to pay investors huge bonuses. Ultra left anarchists cannot expect purist communism to happen overnight. The transformation to communism was first seen as a bourgeois revolution ridding itself of aristocracy. People fail to grasp post revolutionary Russia was attacked by 21different countries plus white Russians. The bogeyman word commie has been replaced by Marxist. The media and higher middle classes want the status quo. Their guilt is mainly covered over by so called charity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top