If marxism were to include a lifestyle, what would it be?

Page 1 of 2 [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

MonsterCrack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Jul 2015
Age: 25
Posts: 735
Location: John's Creek, Georgia

30 Aug 2015, 6:18 pm

If marxism were to have a personal belief system to guide people, as well as a lifestyle, what would it be?



Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

30 Aug 2015, 8:22 pm

The answer to your question can be found in South America: Catholicism and poverty.



DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,105
Location: The Infodome

30 Aug 2015, 11:49 pm

Keep it real and smoke weed every day.


_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/


Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

30 Aug 2015, 11:58 pm

Personal belief system: atheism, rejection of tradition, moral relativism, post-modernism.

Lifestyle: the Borg collective from 'Star Trek' - everyone is the same, loss of individuality, destruction of the family.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

31 Aug 2015, 4:40 am

Just whatever you do go about it violently....and make sure to fail.

because marxism promotes a violent revolution, that may or may not actually result in communism...hence why I am not a marxist, wee bit extreme for my liking.


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

31 Aug 2015, 4:50 am

Lintar wrote:
Personal belief system: atheism, rejection of tradition, moral relativism, post-modernism.

Lifestyle: the Borg collective from 'Star Trek' - everyone is the same, loss of individuality, destruction of the family.


Why couldn't it be everyone's different but has the same access to resources and the same rights...not sure why families would have to be destroyed. I think it would be more fascism/totalitarianism that demands loss of individuality and everyone being the same communism by default cannot be totalitarian since there can be no ruling class since it eliminates class.

Trouble is instead of resulting in communism his approach resulted in totalitarianism...passed off as socialism and/or communism.


_________________
We won't go back.


Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

31 Aug 2015, 11:59 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Personal belief system: atheism, rejection of tradition, moral relativism, post-modernism.

Lifestyle: the Borg collective from 'Star Trek' - everyone is the same, loss of individuality, destruction of the family.


Why couldn't it be everyone's different but has the same access to resources and the same rights...not sure why families would have to be destroyed. I think it would be more fascism/totalitarianism that demands loss of individuality and everyone being the same communism by default cannot be totalitarian since there can be no ruling class since it eliminates class.

Trouble is instead of resulting in communism his approach resulted in totalitarianism...passed off as socialism and/or communism.


But if everyone is different, then this will have to be taken into account when resources are allocated; some will need more, others less. Then there is the not-so-small problem of actually determining what is necessary for these individuals to lead a life that is more than just the minimum required to maintain a bare existence. Will people still have access to little 'luxuries' like enough money to spend on a night at the movies, or extra clothing during winter? What about transportation? People, like me, who live far away from any nearby large city need to have our own. I need a car because I am stuck at home without one, I can't go anywhere. Will my car be deemed to be surplus to my requirements because others who live in the city can catch the tram or train?

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were anti-family. For evidence of this claim just read 'The Communist Manifesto' they co-authored, and when it comes to their views regarding religion this book sounds a lot like something from R. Dawkins or Sam Harris. If everyone will retain their individuality, will they still be permitted to believe in God?



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

01 Sep 2015, 1:55 am

Lintar wrote:

But if everyone is different, then this will have to be taken into account when resources are allocated; some will need more, others less. Then there is the not-so-small problem of actually determining what is necessary for these individuals to lead a life that is more than just the minimum required to maintain a bare existence. Will people still have access to little 'luxuries' like enough money to spend on a night at the movies, or extra clothing during winter? What about transportation? People, like me, who live far away from any nearby large city need to have our own. I need a car because I am stuck at home without one, I can't go anywhere. Will my car be deemed to be surplus to my requirements because others who live in the city can catch the tram or train?

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were anti-family. For evidence of this claim just read 'The Communist Manifesto' they co-authored, and when it comes to their views regarding religion this book sounds a lot like something from R. Dawkins or Sam Harris. If everyone will retain their individuality, will they still be permitted to believe in God?


Anti family in which way? curious as I had not heard of that. Also though I am well aware there are flaws in their ideas, but they don't have a monopoly on the idea of communism. Seems for whatever reason their specific philosophies don't lead to communism. Also if there was a communist society I don't think there would be money in general, and the idea would be to make sure everyone has resources they need as well as the means to enjoy their life...there wouldn't be a government but there would have to be some sort of community council elected by the people or something but there would be much community involvement in making decisions.

I mean currently I certainly don't see such a society forming any time soon but that's vaguely what it could look like...kind of hard to say since its never been done yet.


_________________
We won't go back.


Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

01 Sep 2015, 10:01 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Also though I am well aware there are flaws in their ideas, but they don't have a monopoly on the idea of communism.


Yes, they don't. The idea itself goes back a long way, and although there are many extreme right-wing 'Christians' in the U.S. who would not like to admit it, the Bible really does endorse it (ex. Acts 4:32 to 35).

"32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

That's the kind of communism we need. Marx was too dogmatic, too authoritarian, and the systems that were apparently based upon his ideas couldn't adapt to changing circumstances, circumstances that those living in the mid-19th century could not have foreseen.



JNathanK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,177

02 Sep 2015, 4:47 pm

workplace democracy, running your own business, doing little to empower bourgeois economic and social structure



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

02 Sep 2015, 4:52 pm

Lintar wrote:
But if everyone is different, then this will have to be taken into account when resources are allocated; some will need more, others less. Then there is the not-so-small problem of actually determining what is necessary for these individuals to lead a life that is more than just the minimum required to maintain a bare existence. Will people still have access to little 'luxuries' like enough money to spend on a night at the movies, or extra clothing during winter? What about transportation? People, like me, who live far away from any nearby large city need to have our own. I need a car because I am stuck at home without one, I can't go anywhere. Will my car be deemed to be surplus to my requirements because others who live in the city can catch the tram or train?

Most communists recognise the fact that different people have different needs, hence the phrase; from each acording to his or her ability, to each acording to need.
Lintar wrote:
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were anti-family. For evidence of this claim just read 'The Communist Manifesto' they co-authored, and when it comes to their views regarding religion this book sounds a lot like something from R. Dawkins or Sam Harris. If everyone will retain their individuality, will they still be permitted to believe in God?

Marx and Engles (at least from my memory) believed that the nuclear family is a result of class society, and I think this has been known for years now in anthropology. Many communists believe that the nuclear family would gradually dissapear in a communist society.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

02 Sep 2015, 9:03 pm

RushKing wrote:
Most communists recognise the fact that different people have different needs, hence the phrase; from each acording to his or her ability, to each acording to need.


Who would determine this, and how? It's all very well to spout idealistic cliches, but I want details.



JNathanK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,177

02 Sep 2015, 9:56 pm

RushKing wrote:
Lintar wrote:
But if everyone is different, then this will have to be taken into account when resources are allocated; some will need more, others less. Then there is the not-so-small problem of actually determining what is necessary for these individuals to lead a life that is more than just the minimum required to maintain a bare existence. Will people still have access to little 'luxuries' like enough money to spend on a night at the movies, or extra clothing during winter? What about transportation? People, like me, who live far away from any nearby large city need to have our own. I need a car because I am stuck at home without one, I can't go anywhere. Will my car be deemed to be surplus to my requirements because others who live in the city can catch the tram or train?

Most communists recognise the fact that different people have different needs, hence the phrase; from each acording to his or her ability, to each acording to need.
Lintar wrote:
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were anti-family. For evidence of this claim just read 'The Communist Manifesto' they co-authored, and when it comes to their views regarding religion this book sounds a lot like something from R. Dawkins or Sam Harris. If everyone will retain their individuality, will they still be permitted to believe in God?

Marx and Engles (at least from my memory) believed that the nuclear family is a result of class society, and I think this has been known for years now in anthropology. Many communists believe that the nuclear family would gradually dissapear in a communist society.


The social unit used to be based around villages and extended family. These didn't necessarily exclude nuclear families within it. The shift to a strictly monogamous pairing that lives in one household benefits capitalism, though, because it makes people depend on the corporate-capitalist-state and the currency system for employment and social organization. When life was structured around villages and tribes, employment and social organization was structured around the discretion of elders and family members.



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

02 Sep 2015, 10:54 pm

Lintar wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Most communists recognise the fact that different people have different needs, hence the phrase; from each acording to his or her ability, to each acording to need.


Who would determine this, and how? It's all very well to spout idealistic cliches, but I want details.

First I have to say I'm not marxist or a pacifist. I generaly think people should be able to take from communal shops as they please. I believe there are novelty goods that whould prompt a need for a way to resolve disputes. In these instances collectives would have several options, like having a first come first serve policy, rationing, or let the people who want this good decide how they want to divide it among themselves.



Fogman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,986
Location: Frå Nord Dakota til Vermont

03 Sep 2015, 3:34 am

MonsterCrack wrote:
If marxism were to have a personal belief system to guide people, as well as a lifestyle, what would it be?


I think that Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism made bids for this, and they all pretty much sucked as far as individual liberties, and dissenting opinions were concerned. Then again, all religions pretty much suck as far as differing opinions are concerned. -- I give you the Catholic Church Circa 15th Century, and the current state of affairs in Islamic countries as exhibit 'A'.


_________________
When There's No There to get to, I'm so There!


Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

03 Sep 2015, 7:17 pm

RushKing wrote:
Lintar wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Most communists recognise the fact that different people have different needs, hence the phrase; from each acording to his or her ability, to each acording to need.


Who would determine this, and how? It's all very well to spout idealistic cliches, but I want details.

First I have to say I'm not marxist or a pacifist. I generaly think people should be able to take from communal shops as they please. I believe there are novelty goods that whould prompt a need for a way to resolve disputes. In these instances collectives would have several options, like having a first come first serve policy, rationing, or let the people who want this good decide how they want to divide it among themselves.


When you say 'take', I'm assuming you mean 'pay for' via the use of a currency of some kind, or maybe even barter. Who would do the bookkeeping in these communal shops? That would require a knowledge by someone running it of accounting, or the hiring of an accountant. What do you mean by 'novelty goods'? Dispute resolution is now handled by our courts, so why would we need to replace this system, and with what? First come, first served, is how shops now operate, so this isn't a novel idea. Rationing is only ever needed when there are shortages of certain goods, due to either high demand, low production, or both. There is, at this point in time in the West at least, a surplus of just about everything, so why would we need to ration anything? Over-production seems to be a problem at the moment, so how would you keep as many people involved in productive employment whilst cutting back on production? Would welfare payments still exist? Would those who work very long hours cut back to allow those without work to contribute to society? Would part-time and casual work become the norm? What about de-industrialisation, and the inevitable consequence of this for millions of unskilled, unemployed and unemployable factory workers and labourers? Not everyone can find work in the services sector (like someone who has Asperger's Syndrome), nor does everyone have the talent to graduate from university with a PhD.