The first discussion. What specifically do you want to achieve from communism?

in discussion •  7 years ago 

Everybody does something for a different reason.

I might as well start of the discussion, I want communism for a few simple reasons.

  1. Capitalism is extremely bad at organization, especially within the workplace. I want to be free in my methods of labor and labor because I want to, not because it is forced on me.

  2. I want to end the massive military industrial complex and focus on science and progress.

  3. Life is boring, without dedicating it to something you think is useful why live?

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  
  1. Fuck private property.
    Private property=unpaid wages.
    I don't want to work 14 hours a day and get paid for 10 hours equivalent of labour.

  2. Fuck Religion.
    Religion is basically a false hope for the working class created by the rich. In my opinion, religion is the foundation of class division( at least in my country (Nepal,Hinduism))

  3. Development of science
    People argue with corny phrases like "Capitalism made your iPhone". No, labour made your iPhone, not Capitalism. The ideas behind the iPhone( or any invention for that matter) are created not by the rich but by the hard-working scientist who works for the betterment of humankind but at the end, they don't have enough budget to pay for science. The rich get to decide where to spend in science, there is enough money for F-35 fighters but not enough money for NASA( just 0.5% of federal budget!). The US didn't put a man on the moon for science, no it was just to win the space race with USSR. If there was no cold war, there would not be any moon-landing.
    The discovery of higgs particle could have been a decade earlier if the planned Superconducting Super Collider was not cancelled by the US government (they said that the project was too expensive, but if the cold war had not ended then surely the US would have invested in the collider). The collider's planned collision energy was 3 times that of what we have now in LHC.

its way less than 10/14ths of your labor, profit taken out of the price of products you have to buy factors in as well.

I know somebody that was going to work on the superconducting super collider, when they canceled it he used his knowledge of statistics to make millions on the stock market instead.

Also the US didnt even win the space race smh

that 10/14 was just a random number tbh, but what makes you think the USSR won the space race? First, what is the criteria to win the space race? Can't deny the fact that Russians were the pioneer of spaceflight, they sacrificed more than their US counterpart, plus they had a tighter budget to work on with but we also can't deny the fact that moon landing was the historical checkpoint in the space race.

From the science point of view, there were no winner and losers but still, if I had to give the space medal, I would give it to the US. Solely on the basis that they put man on the moon.

btw, capitalism worked out well for that guy. Collider getting cancelled and making millions.

the ussr was first to everything, except for a single goal of the US, putting a human on the moon. After that the us just declared themselves the victors.

If I recall correctly, the USSR had the first person in space, first satellite, first person in orbit, and first man-made object on the moon

The abolition of class - and therefore the abolition of private property rights as well as the state, etc. - and the abolition of bourgeois exchange - and therefore money. This is to be replaced with communal ownership and free, unoppressive relationships (unoppressive insofar as no one is oppressed in the process) in the first and, in the second, we will use distribution. When talking about distribution, there are two main phases: lower-phase Communism (often called Socialism by other Marxists, not to be conflated with the dictatorship of the proletariat, which MLs often do) in which distribution is based on "to each according to [their] contribution" (via labour vouchers) and higher-phase communism in which distribution is based on "to each according to [their] need, from each according to [their] ability". The former phases is required only as a result of remaining, post-capitalist scarcity. After this scarcity is gone - from scientific advances and using a more efficient use-value based production (rather than an exchange-value based production), we can proceed to the higher-phase.