robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Prakash RP wrote:Dear Adam, shying away from making your views known on an issue is not only ignominious for a man of your stature but unbecoming of a man with backbone as well. And in order to be a true communist, you have to be endowed with backbone you need to face any truth. I'm not happy to pass such unpleasant comments about you. But then you've failed disgustingly to respond to my comment #266 and clarify your stance on the compulsory ' minimum length of the working-day ' under communism and using unkind, humiliating expressions like ' crude communist ', etc to refer to me is not right.You're also expected to respond to my comment #314 and oblige me by making known your position on the irreconcilable contradiction between the idea of the equal sharing of the social workload for an equal share in social wealth and the principle of ' from each according to his ability to each according to his needs '.
This is rich coming from someone who has conspicuously failed to respond to criticism of his own very weak and illogical arguments about the nature of communism. Perhaps Prakash you could attempt to answer the specific concrete questions I raised in post number 315 before casting totally unjustified aspersions on others here.
Prakash RP wrote:' Nonsense. Work is voluntary, non-compulsory, non-exploitative. ' ( Comment #279 by Matt ) Beliefs or ideas not resting on sound logic ( not sophistries nor any stuff like blind faith ) are worthless in a debate aimed at finding the truth and so unbecoming of the sensible. And in order to be a true communist, you have to be the sensible first, IMHO. I think I've furnished plentiful incontestable logic to establish my thesis, i.e. the view that the sharing of social workload meant to produce wealth can't be ' voluntary '. My comments #243, #251, #253, #258, #263, #268, #277, #281, #285, #293, #301 & #308 are meant to enlighten you about it. Nevertheless, you're free to ignore it and join the swarms of the silly and benighted that make up the overwhelming majority in today's world. But if you choose not to join up with the silly crowd, I'd ask you to point to which one or ones of my arguments you think wrong and clarify why you think so. ' Access to the total common product is free for all. ' ( ibid ) If you mean, as it seems to me, that everyone is free to reach and enter the store room of social wealth, but none is free to take possession of as much wealth as they please, you're right. Nevertheless, the principle of ' to each according to his needs ' suggests everyone is entitled to grab as much wealth as they please. It's just not possible because the total amount of social wealth, be it superabundant or just abundant, is limited and can never grow unlimited, and because the unequal sharing of social wealth happens to be in irreconcilable contradiction to the foundation of classless society. ' The concept of equal contributions and access is meaningless and will eb seen to be so, in light of this advanced accelerated post-capitalist, production for use … ' ( ibid ) The ' advanced accelerated post-capitalist, production for use ' cannot grow beyond a limit. Besides, unequal share in social wealth clashes with the very basis for the classless order.Here we go again. The same old dull bourgeois dogmas and prejudices are once again being peddled by our "humble seeker after the truth" who, nothwithstanding his "humility", reckons himself to be the "Originator" of the thesis – actually a very old thesis – on money's incapacity to reflect use value. Talking about sophistry, I have yet to hear from our resident sophist, Prakash, how exactly he proposes to ensure that, in what he calls "communism", everyone will be forced to make exactly the same labour contribution as everyone else. Who is going to do the enforcing, Prakash? How do you ensure that the enforcers won't themselves use their power to abuse the system and get out of doing their "fair share of the work"? After all, according to your bourgeois way of thinking, work is a "disutilty" and so we must be compelled to work. And how are you going to measure one person's labour against another's anyway? Is one hour of labour in a kitchen making soup equivalent to one hour's labour cleaning the sewer or knitting a jumper? Explain Spit it out Prakash. Give us your specific concrete answers to these specific concrete questions instead of just waffling on vaguely about stuff – like beliefs not based on "sound logic" being "unbecoming of the sensible". Yeah if you say so, mate The same criticism applies to the demand side of the equation, Acccording to your bouregeois way of thinking you cant have people just helping themselves to goods according to their self determined needs cos, well , wealth is limited and people are basically greedy swines arent they? This same sentiment is faithfully echoed in any standard bourgeois economic textbook. This is the ABC of capitalist econmic thinking that you are faithfully spouting: limited supplies and unlimited demands. You have simply not grasped what communism (socialism) is about at all or the precoditions upon which it will operate. If people think and behave in the way you suggest then you can't have communism. End of story. Communism presupposes people understand the kind of society they are creating for themselves and take responsbility for ensuring it works. Even today people, despite capitalism, very often behave in ways that contradict what you claim. Most work for example is not paid or forced upon people by some external power. You dont grow your veggies or clean your bedroom or volunteer to help your local charitable cause because the local authorities have passed some edict requring you to do these things. You do it becuase you want to do it and because you feel the need to do it. Similarly, if you visit a restuarant where you can eat as much as you like for a set price you dont eat more than you need becuase being sick would rather defeat the point of the exercise, wouldnt it?. There are countless other examples of real world behavour that confound and refute your dreary pessimistic view of the communistic potential of ordinary human beings. It is high time you started to get to grips with the case for communism instead of constantly evading the arguments that support it
Prakash RP wrote:The points you oughtn't to have failed to take cognisance of are : ( 1 ) ' communism is expected to set off with highly socialised labour. ' ( #293 ) ( 2 ) There cannot arise any contradiction between the highly socialise labour and the principle of the equal sharing of the social workload for the equal share in social wealth. ' Collectivization is a wrong conception created by the Stalinists … ' ( #294 ) By the expression ' socialisation of labour ' ( Capital Volume I by Marx ; see chapter XXXII, p 715 ), Marx meant the collectivisation of labour. I don't think collectivisation is a wrong concept.Once again you are barking up the wrong tree completely with your bizarre interpetation of Marx. No one is disputing that 'communism is expected to set off with highly socialised labour. ' Nor is it disputed that the social workload will be shared. What is in dispute is the basis on which the workload will be shared. The principle of "from each according to to ability to each according to need" endorsed by Marx and by other communists is very clear on this point. The workload will be shared voluntarily by "freely associated producers". Marx's own depiction of a communist society bears this out. For example in his commentary of the division of labour he says this: For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.” (The German Ideology) This is totally incompatible with your view of "communist society" as one in which labour wll be coerced and regulated by some kind of centralised adminsistration which will moreover strive to ensure in some way (as yet unexplained) that each worker will perform exactly the same amount of labour as everyone else
Prakash RP wrote:The above excerpt from CAPITAL Volume III also corroborates my view that the sharing of the social workload by everyone ( except all those entitled to be exempted from work ) under communism can't be optional or ' voluntary ' ( ' all social formations ' and ' all possible modes of production ' do not exclude communism and the communist mode of production ), RIGHT ?WRONG. There is no suggestion at all in Marx that the "social workload" cannot be shared on a completely voluntary and unforced basis. That is what the principle "from each according to ability to each acording to needs" means and that is what Marx meant by the "true realm of freedom" blossoming forth "with this realm of necessity as its basis". The development of the productive forces enables the "The shortening of the working-day" which then makes possible a communist society of free access and volunteer labour
Prakash RP wrote:' It seems to be that what you are doing is putting forward the typical bourgeois prejudice that human beings are naturally lazy and slothful. ' ( ibid )No, I don't deserve this allegation. Nevertheless, I deserve the allegation that I want you to take cognisance of the fact that not all humans are naturally sensible and dutiful. There are so many people that are workshy alongside of so many workaholics. They are and will be for all eternity in keeping with laws of Nature as there are.You fully deserve that allegation in my opinion. I remind you what you said. A system of voluntary labour, you said, is “certain to endanger the existence of society”. What is that if not a “typical bourgeois prejudice that human beings are naturally lazy and slothful”? You now try to wriggle out of the hole you’ve dug for yourself by qualifying your statement with “if some people choose to shun work”. What is "some"? Let us allow that "some" people do indeed choose to shun work. If you are referring to present day capitalist society that is understandable. Forced labour (which you advocate) is not particularly congenial to many people. Many people don’t like the idea of being bossed around at work (which is what would be the case under your proposed society). So of course some of them “choose to shun work”. But we are not talking about present day capitalist society. We are talking about a future communist society operating on the principle of voluntary labour. If some people continue to choose to shun work in that society is that society going to be mortally endangered as you claim? I dont think so at all We will be more than capable of carryng such people and if not then you can be certain that what is called the "free rider" problem will overcome by the very simple and very effective mechanism that is called social disapproval. People do care what others think about them and if sloth is ever going to become a significant problem then it is precisely this mechanism that will kick in to overcome it
Prakash RP wrote:' … most of what passes for work or rather employment today – e.g. all money related occupations – will no longer be needed, meaning that the overall workload for society will be far less under communism than it is today. Never mind, that the conditions under which we shall work then will be vastly improved by comparsion with today. Never mind that EVEN TODAY under capitalism slightly more than half of all work is carried on outside of the system of a monetary exchange and is voluntary and unremunerated as all work would be in communism.None of these points seem to register with you. ' ( ibid ) Communism must do away with the commodity economy and thus money, the filthy lucre, too because money is meant to measure the value of and exchange commodities, and with this ' all money-related occupations ' will disappear, consequent on which facts, the social working-day will be significantly shorter and keep on being shorter and shorter under communism. But it doesn't follow from this that the unpaid labour, the only legitimate source of capitalists' profit, is ' voluntary ' ; nor does it follow from this that all work under communism will be ' voluntary ' and unrewarded ( the term ' unremunerated ' doesn't fit in with communism ). The reasons why no work under communism can be ' voluntary ' or deprived of its due reward have already been referred to in my comment #281.What on earth are you talking about? Your thinking on this matter seems very confused and muddled. Who said anything about the unpaid labour of the workers that goes to produce the capitalists' profit, being ' voluntary '. It is NOT voluntary. It is coerced labour just as much as that part of the worker’s labour that goes to reproduce her labour power. You are the one who wants a system of coerced labour , not me! And again I see you make no attempt to relate the point I make about the workload that a communist society will face to the idea of motivation to work. Generally speaking it is when people have to work long hours that their motivation to work is considerably dampened and vice versa
Prakash RP wrote:' Instead, you prefer to put the worst possible construction on "human nature", declaring that society would be "endangered" if its citizens had the freedom to choose. This has been the rallying cry of reactionaries throughout history. ' ( ibid ) This allegation against me is also without logical foundation. The ' human nature ' is not uniform, and not all humans are good-natured. If the workshy are allowed freedom to choose to shun work, it'll certainly ' " endanger " ' the entire society. Have a re-look at my comment #281, will you ? The ' rallying cry of reactionaries ' cannot be, just because it's the ' rallying cry of reactionaries ', wrong just as whatever a communist thinks and believes can't be right just because they profess to be communist.You should stop and listen to yourself for once. Listen to the words you use. “If the workshy are allowed freedom to choose to shun work, it'll certainly ' " endanger " ' the entire society”. You sound like the Conservative Government’s Employment Secretary having a go at the “lazy workers”. Capitalist politicians are forever having a go at what they call the “workshy”. Never mind that in capitalism’s periodic recessions there are no jobs for the so called “workshy” anyway. Personally I consider the very term "workshy" which you have chosen to use here reveals the same kind of contempt for the workers that you might expect of a capitalist politician. Workers are not workshy. If they were, the system would collapse tomorrow. Many who you malign as workshy will be found working hard at all sorts of things which a capitalist politician might not consider to be work – since it is done outside the money economy – but it is still neverthless very clearly “work”. Once again you seem to have no comprehension of this point in your enthusiasm to smear your fellow workers as “workshy”
Prakash RP wrote:' Instead of adopting such a pessimistic view of human beings why not look upon work – or creative activity – as an essential human need – something that we need to do to define ourselves as human beings, not just becuase we need to produce food to eat (or we will starve) but because we need to express ourselves through creative labour and becuase we need to express our basic social nature and sense of solidarity through human cooperation. ' ( ibid ) I'm not pessimist. It's your silly invention. I'm a humble seeker after the truth, and I believe the truth is invincible, inescapable, and irresistible. What I've stated in this thread are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, and so is my view* of human beings. Just calling it ' pessimistic ' doesn't prove it's fallacious. Your faculty of reasoning seems to be not yet mature enough. I don't think looking upon ' work – or creative activity – as an essential human need -something … ' would effect any basic change in human nature and thus transform the bad into the good, the reactionary into the progressive, the capitalist into communists, etc, etc. Nevertheless, I can't see how this outlook of yours is related to the issue we're debating now, i.e. whether the idea of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is sensible.This is ridiculous. Of course you are adopting a pessimistic view in relaton to the point at issue. You said it yourself FFS A system of voluntary labour, you said, is “certain to endanger the existence of society”. What is that if not “pessimistic”, huh? Incidentally I don’t say your argument is false because it is pessimistic. I say it is false because it does not hold water, It is unsound
Prakash RP wrote:' You will be well advised to heed what he wrote in the Critique of the Gotha programme:"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! ". ' ( ibid ) I'm not unacquainted with the Critique of the Gotha programme by Marx. I think before commenting on the above quote, I ought to make it clear that I'm not Marxist, and that I don't think those people that profess to be Marxists, Leninists or Maoists comprehend the theory of communism and deserve to be recognised as true communist. I'm just a communist— a communist that believes the theory of communism discovered by Marx and Engels is premised on incontestable scientific logic, a communist that believes it's communism, and communism alone, that fits in with the PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING , the principle that every civilised human must make their life principle and practise honestly.See, I don’t think you are a communist. No communist would repudiate the principle “from each according to ability to each according to need”. I am not quite sure what you are but you clearly want a society based on forced labour, rationed consumption and centralised control
Prakash RP wrote:The brute and naked truth is the idea of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is devoid of any such logical footing. The idea of equal sharing of social workload for an equal share in social wealth is logically sound and is in complete harmony with the concept of classless social order, an order free of the exploitation of man by man, and free of the greatest and gravest social injustice ( i.e. the most disgusting and distressing fact that in a class-ridden society, the poor millions who are all born poor to sweat blood throughout their life and to be exploited by the rich and the super-rich, the 1%, and thus grow poorer and poorer are not to blame for their pathetic plight ).The way I see it the kind of society you advocate will reproduce the very system of class exploitation you claim to oppose. It will inevitably concentrate power in the hands of a techno-managerial elite required to oversee and manage the process of ensuring an “equal sharing of social workload for an equal share in social wealth”. And despite your confident assertion that this principle of yours is “logically sound and is in complete harmony with the concept of classless social order” I don’t think you have even begun to understand what it is you are taking on. How for example, do you compare the labour of a janitor with the labour of neurosurgeon in order to ensure an “equal sharing of social workload”. In a system of voluntarylabour there is no need whatsoever to make these kinds of comparison but in your system it is absolutely vital
Prakash RP wrote:The ' higher phase ' of communism is a long way off. I think you ought to try to make yourself worthy of the first or lower phase of communism. Guys pitiably lacking in the backbone needed to stand up straight with their heads held erect in front of the PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING , oughtn't to fancy themselves as communist. Your silence on the points against the justifiability of the assertion that the compulsory, as I see it, sharing of social workload under communism is ' voluntary ' is conspicuous and intriguing.Once again – don’t be ridiculous! I haven’t been silent on the question of the “compulsory sharing of the workload”. I have been vigorously attacking the very idea from the word go. Or did you not realise this? I see no need today for Marx’s lower phase of communism. Marx was living in era of unavoidable scarcity, we are not. We have the technological potential now to move straight over to Marx’s higher phase of communism. All that is lacking is the subjective conditions that would make this possible – mass socialist consciousness
Ozymandias wrote:Just a last call to say that I still have a large amount of Standards and some pamphlets left. They will be getting tipped in the bin if they can't be claimed by anyone in the Glasgow area.Ozy, Rather than do that why not try offloading them on to a charity or second hand book shop for free. I did that when I moved house recently and I wouldnt be surprised if you get a little spurt of enquiries from Southern Spain shortly that would be the reason
Matt wrote:All I am saying is it is not necessarily the Israeli state whch forbids it, while everything else you say still applies.There is just no provision for civil mariage, although civil unions can be done. There may have been no actual demand for this provision.I don't know if, for example in the Irish republic, civil mariages were permitted during De Valera's time, say as a continuum of U.K. law, but it is very unlikely Protestants could have married Catholics in a religious ceremony without conversion in any part of the U.K. until recently.That particular problem is one of a religious dimension, which as always can be utilised and manipulated within the political field by powermongers.Thanks Matt. To be honest, "interfaith marraiges in Israel" is not a subject I have explored much so it is interesting to hear what you say. I am a little confused by some of the links Ive come across though. For example this one says:"According to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, interfaith marriages now account for one in ten unions in Israel, "with the non-Jewish partner often subjected to second-class treatment by the state". In spite of this, interfaith marriages in the country are still on the rise, the paper says." (http://www.theweek.co.uk/middle-east/60050/how-unusual-are-interfaith-marriages-in-israel) However correct me if I am wrong, while the state does not ban mixed marriages as such it only recognises marraiges perfomed by the relevant religious authorities which in the case of Jews or Muslims will not sanction mixed marriages. For instance, according to Wikipedia Marriages in Israel can be performed only under the auspices of the religious community to which couples belong, and no religious intermarriages can be performed legally in Israel. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Israel) So how, in that case, are interfaith marriages possible??? Lastly, there is this bit which I have copied and pasted from the Quora website which is interesting – particularly the last quote with its clearly racist overtones“Israel's Knesset has extended a law that bans Palestinians married to Israelis from living with their spouses in Israel for another year.The law was first passed in 2003 and extended in 2008, and forbids Palestinians married to Israelis from living in Israel, or becoming Israeli citizens.Many critics say that the law essentially makes marriage between Israelis and Palestinians impossible, as the couple would have to live in different countries that are very difficult to pass between.” “Mixed Israeli and Palestinian couples are not only unable to live together inside Israel but they are also denied a married life in the occupied territories, from which Israeli citizens are banned under military regulations.”“Yoel Hasson of the ruling Kadima party hailed the court’s decision as “a victory for those who believe in Israel as a Jewish state”, while the immigration absorption minister, Zeev Boim, added: “We have to maintain the state’s democratic nature, but also its Jewish nature. The extent of entry of [Palestinian spouses] into Israel’s territories is intolerable.””Obviously this isn’t a problem if one is Jewish. Remember what Israeli founding father, Jabotinsky once wrote:"It is impossible for a man to become assimilated with people whose blood is different from his own. In order to become assimilated, he must change his body, he must become one of them, in blood. … There can be no assimilation as long as there is no mixed marriage. … An increase in the number of mixed marriages is the only sure and infallible means for the destruction of nationality as such. … A preservation of national integrity is impossible except by a preservation of racial purity, and for that purpose we are in need of a territory of our own where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority” https://www.quora.com/Why-are-interfaith-marriages-illegal-in-Israel
Matt wrote:robbo203 wrote:That would make the Israeli state not unlike the Apartheid state in South Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_Mixed_Marriages_Act,_1949 In other words Zionism could be construed as a form of racismNot really for the specific religious question. If we take being jewish as strictly religious matter. It used to be a requirement for protestants to convert to catholicism before they could get a church wedding. Where civil ceremonies exist it supplanted this to some extent. I think this may be the case with some other religions also.
You may be right Matt but I would be more persuaded if it were the case that one could still, as a person of the Jewish faith, officially marry someone not of that faith at all. But apparently you cannot if what Alan says is correct – meaning the Israeli state forbids it – and you have to wonder why. Even being of the same faith would not necessarily preclude racism BTW. A good example of this is the“Limpieza de Sangre” – purity of blood – discriminatory decree enacted at the time of the Spanish Inquisition to differentiate between "Old Christians" and "New Christians" (converts from Judaism and Islam) and applied even more vigorously when Spain acquired its colonial possessions abroad Zionists – Israeli natonalists – are constantly whinging that their critics are resorting to anti-semitisim in wanting to deny the "Jewish people" the right to a homeland of their own just like any other "people". They can't pin this transperently feeble argument on us socialists since we oppose ALL nationalisms – Israeli nationalism or Zionism, Palestinian nationalism, British nationalism , Russsian nationalism.etc etc..We identify with the interests of workers in Israel just as much as the workers elsewhere in their struggles against capital. Anti-semitism is as much a barrier to socialism as Zionism is. Havent read it yet but have just com across which looks interesting:http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/zionism.html
alanjjohnstone wrote:https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-could-you-marry-in-israel-1.5250455It seems that indeed there is no interfaith "mixed" marriages permittedNo civil marriage exists in Israel…but there is civil unions.That would make the Israeli state not unlike the Apartheid state in South Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_Mixed_Marriages_Act,_1949 In other words Zionism could be construed as a form of racism
This situation is extremely worrying. It could very quickly flare up into a major conflict. Perhaps some kind of statement should be prepared by the Media committee. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/russia-vows-to-shoot-down-us-rockets-with-its-lethal-anti-aircraft-missiles-deadly-s-400-ring-of-steel-protects-assad-as-moscow-accuses-trump-of-trying-to-cover-up-faked-gas-attack/ar-AAvL96I?ocid=spartandhp
Prakash RP wrote:' The whole idea of socialism/communism is that what is collectively produced should be collectively owned and then shared out amongst all members of society in accordance with their needs. ' ( comment #247 by ALB ) I have strong reservation about the correctness of this ' idea of socialism/ communism '. The pair of shoes I use happens to be the product of the collective labour of a group of workers of a particular shoe factory. Therefore, by this idea of socialism, an insignificant number of people are lawful owners of these shoes. None of any other shoe-factory workers and none of any non-shoe-factory workers are entitled to claim the ownership of these shoes. Nevertheless, this isn't the social ownership that communism stands for.Once again Prakash your understanding of what socialism or commnism is about leaves a lot to be desired. Socialism or communism is NOT about the common ownership of consumer goods; rather, it is about the common ownership of producer goods – that is to say, means of production. Socialised ownership of these means of production is the logical corrollary of the socialised character of modern production itself. I have no wish whastover to share your toothbrush – or your shoes – with you in a communist society and there is no sensible reason why I should. Possessions are clearly distinguishable from property in the economic sense as referring to means of production
ALB wrote:And Thomas More didn't envisage a basic "income" in his "utopia" but a society that didn't use money. Not at all the same.Ive tried to get in touch with the writer, Claire Suddath, to point out some of the problems with her article. She might respond so its a case of "watch this space"
Prakash RP wrote:' In communism the very idea of material rewards becomes obsolete – defunct. You are confusing the communist principle of from each according to ability to each according to need (which is understood to mean free access to goods and voluntary labour) with the Stalinist principle … ' ( ibid ) All of you are mistaken, and your mistakes seem to be rooted in your delusion that the compulsory work meant to produce social wealth under communism is ' voluntary '. My dear friend, participation in economic activities for money or something in kind can't be ' voluntary '. All sorts of work aimed at the creation of social wealth must be compulsory for everyone that doesn't deserve exemption from work under communism. The reason is the simple fact that economic activities forms the basis for the social economy. And it happens to be the social economy the entire social edifice rests on. Therefore, if participation in economic activities is made voluntary, anyone will be as free to work as free not to work. Thus, if people choose to enjoy their freedom to shun work, it's certain to endanger the existence of society.On one point you are correct, Prakash. Insofar as work will indeed be voluntary and uncoerced in a communist society anyone will indeed be "as free to work as free not to work". They will also be free to choose the kind of work they want to do. All this is quite true and freely acknowledged by us communists. Moreover, we see no problem with what is being proposed here AT ALL. You , on the other hand, see nothing but calamity in such a proposal. You consider that it is "certain to endanger the existence of society". Really? How so. It seems to be that what you are doing is putting forward the typical bourgeois prejudice that human beings are naturally lazy and slothful. Never mind that you make no allowance for the fact that most of what passes for work or rather employment today – e.g. all money related occupations – will no longer be needed, meaning that the overall workload for society will be far less under communism than it is today. Never mind, that the conditions under which we shall work then will be vastly improved by comparsion with today. Never mind that EVEN TODAY under capitalism slightly more than half of all work is carried on outside of the system of a monetary exchange and is voluntary and unremunerated as all work would be in communism. None of these points seem to register with you. Instead, you prefer to put the worst possible construction on "human nature", declaring that society would be "endangered" if its citizens had the freedom to choose. This has been the rallying cry of reactionaries throughout history. Instead of adopting such a pessimistic view of human beings why not look upon work – or creative activity – as an essential human need – something that we need to do to define ourselves as human beings, not just becuase we need to produce food to eat (or we will starve) but because we need to express ourselves through creative labour and becuase we need to express our basic social nature and sense of solidarity through human cooperation. You have mentioned Marx often enough. You will be well advised to heed what he wrote in the Critique of the Gotha programme: "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! " (my bold)
Interesting article here – with a historical angle to it https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/personalfinance/what-if-everyone-got-a-monthly-cheque-from-the-government/ar-AAuB0yL?item=personalization_enabled:false
Bijou Drains wrote:Prakash RP wrote:The one-line answer to all these queries is : It's communism, and communism alone, that can create a social environment harmonising with the Principle of Healthy & Meaningful Living . If you want to lead a healthy and sensible existence befitting the space age you belong to, you've got no other option than to stand for and welcome communism, OK ?So tell me, oh Great Originator, for those of us who, under your concept of communist society, choose not to live a healthy and meaningful life, what of people like me, who wish to live a truely meaningless life, indulging in alcohol, fattening foods, indulging in matrimony, smoking tobacco, etc. If I do not chose to live a "sensible" life, but rather lead a life of sillyness, what will become of me and my kind?Will we be banished to re-eduation camps where will sit in wonder at the statue of Prakash RP (aka The great Originator) whilst contemplating our sins against the Principles of a Healthy and Meaningful Life and drinking herbal tea, will we be placed in forced labout camps, where we will be made to chant out incantations to the glorious images of teh Great Prakash RP?
Its more like fascism than communism that seems to appeal to him, if you ask me…
