Autism, exploitation and Capitalism

[FireIceTalon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPfsDx3bQwA

Outstanding video. I have a family member who is on the spectrum so this video resonated strongly.

Article by the same author as the video:

http://www.workers.org/2012/us/autistics_0419/

[LennyLen]

I am a person on the spectrum and the video did not resonate with me in any way whatsoever.

[FireIceTalon]

Good for you. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact the system oppresses, discriminates and in general treats Autistics and other disabled people like shit because they are viewed as inferior, and a danger to profits.

[Ashock]

I am a person on the spectrum and the video did not resonate with me in any way whatsoever.

FireIceTalon troll in his native habitat - Please do not feed!

[FireIceTalon]

The mere fact you are calling me a troll for observing a real existing thing shows that, the only troll here is in fact YOU. I'm fucking tired of you running around this forum in any political discussion without even contributing an ounce of something constructive. I know I shouldn't expect much more from an apologist for white supremacy, but goddamn. And I'm not the only one who feels this way about you, believe it. You should thank your lucky stars that I'm not an Admin here, and that Bolty is more tolerant of your white nationalist rhetoric and trolling than I would be. Now get the fuck out of my thread.

[Ashock]

The mere fact you are calling me a troll for observing a real existing thing shows that, the only troll here is in fact YOU. I'm fucking tired of you running around this forum in any political discussion without even contributing an ounce of something constructive. I know I shouldn't expect much more from an apologist for white supremacy, but goddamn. And I'm not the only one who feels this way about you, believe it. You should thank your lucky stars that I'm not an Admin here, and that Bolty is more tolerant of your white nationalist rhetoric and trolling than I would be. Now get the fuck out of my thread.

You have a thread? Where? You have one person who accidentally posted something in it. I'm reasonably sure that after I pointed out his mistake, he won't repeat it again.

More importantly though.... keep in mind.... I love you, man.

[FireIceTalon]

The feelin' aint mutual.

[LennyLen]

I'm reasonably sure that after I pointed out his mistake, he won't repeat it again.

I generally try not to, but I'd just come from a reading a long FB argument about living with Autism between two people who aren't even Autistic. I get tired of people telling me what it's like to have a condition that I have that they don't.

Hell, of course people with Autism get exploited by others - so do people without Autism. Humans are generally selfish and we'll exploit anything to get ourselves ahead. If we weren't, we have had FITs imaginary utopia millennia ago.

[FireIceTalon]

Hell, of course people with Autism get exploited by others - so do people without Autism.

But this misses the point entirely. Yes, all workers are exploited under capitalism, but people with disabilities are so far more, because they are viewed as a threat to profit in such a way that those w/o disabilities aren't. If you have an neurotypical person and a autistic person, with the same exact qualifications in an interview, who do you think is more likely to be hired? We both know the answer to this question. Also, people with autism or other disabilities are more likely to be fired or laid off than those who are neurotypical or abled, for the same reasons. Additionally, they are usually paid less to do the same jobs, and the unemployment rate for people on the spectrum is nearly 80% worldwide - that is higher even than adults who have a intellectual disability, since that is seen as a lesser evil for the capitalists than having a social or neurological disability like autism/aspergers.

Humans are generally selfish and we'll exploit anything to get ourselves ahead.

Blanket statement. This is the essence of bourgeois idealism regarding human interactions - oversimplified and, generally, quite vulgar while offering little insight to social conditions. The ruling class has been perpetuating this pseudo-scientific, biologically determistic crud into the consciousness of the masses since the dawn of capitalism, because they know an organized, socialist working class is a huge threat to their privilege, power and the very system of private property that creates the given class relations in the first place. Selfishness, exploitation, and greed aren't biological traits, they're entirely social and therefore must be learned. The same is true of racism, sexism and all discriminatory thought in general - people aren't born that way, they learn to be this way. If you put people in a class based society where competition and hierarchy comprise the social structure rather than cooperation and equality, their thoughts, behavior and actions are naturally going to reflect such. The same is true if its the reverse. This also applies to the institutions within the society, which will be reflective of the given social order and how it is organized. Base & Superstructure. There is no such thing as 'inherent selfishness'.

If we weren't, we have had FITs imaginary utopia millennia ago.

There is nothing imaginary or utopian about it, comrade. If the means of production being owned by a small elite class of individuals is possible, as under the failing present social order, then the diametrically opposite condition of them being owned by all citizens of the world is also a possibility. There is nothing utopian about people deciding what to produce, how to produce it, how much of it to produce, and so on. Nor is it imaginary, since such similarly structured societies existed previously; as recently as around 12,000 years ago (blink of an eye in our species time here), before the Agricultural Revolution produced a surplus of goods and thus created the conditions that allowed class society to develop. Of course, given our technological development and supply of resources compared to that time, such a social organization of people would be far superior now to the one then, the only thing them having in common is common ownership to the means of production. The quote in my signature sums it up well.

It is true that there are utopian theories of socialism, namely Owenism, but they have nothing in common with the scientific socialism put forth by the work of Marx and Engels; the framework that I operate within.

[Ashock]

The feelin' aint mutual.

So angry. Let me lend you a shoe...

[Tal]

You should thank your lucky stars that I'm not an Admin here, and that Bolty is more tolerant of your white nationalist rhetoric and trolling than I would be.

I really don't think you should be the one running up that particular flag.

Fun fact - I've gotten more Moderator mail about you than I have any other user. Ever.

Now get the fuck out of my thread.

You don't get to say who can post in the thread and who can't. But you can decide which comments to read by slapping an ignore on Ashock and moving on with your attempts to convert the capitalists.

[kandrathe]

Good for you. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact the system oppresses, discriminates and in general treats Autistic people and other disabled people like doodoo because they are viewed as inferior, and a danger to profits.

I too, am on the spectrum. The lecture is riddled with false equivalences. The core issue is the value of a person's contribution to society.

LOL moment...

Because of this devaluation, people with disabilities have been neglected, abused and killed since the dawn of class society.

Ever heard of "Caeadas of Taygetus" near Sparti? Or, child abandonment & infanticide in pre-Christian Nordic culture. But, not limited to the advent of the class system. It was common thought across the political left/right in the US, during the Progressive Era (early - mid-1900's), that "undesirables" should be sterilized (even here in rural Minnesota).

Using his example, being blind. If the person becomes trained in using their remaining senses to offer value, such as Jack Chen, then our society is able to fit them in.

Jack Chen would not fit in the majority of jobs available since he lacks a sense necessary for most jobs. But, he, as did I, have overcome our disabilities to find a niche within the system. But, more and more, due to laws like the ADA, employers are encouraged (aka. required ) to accommodate people with disabilities. My employer has a schedule of alterations needed across these ancient buildings built in 1902 that will cost millions of dollars. Our web site maintainers have spent thousands of hours making our sites accessible to the sight impaired.

The sociological issue is not disability. It is that we have a portion of our society that does not fit the free market model of Pre-K to 12th grade mandatory public education, optional post-secondary education, then to find work for 90,000 hours to provide an income for yourself (and optional family) until retirement. Then, depending on how much you saved or invested, you may or may not be above the poverty line until you die. The challenge to ushering us all into the communist utopia is that people like to remain free to make their own decisions on how they lead their lives.

Have you heard of the UBI proposal by Charles Murray?

The UBI has brought together odd bedfellows. Its advocates on the left see it as a move toward social justice; its libertarian supporters (like Friedman) see it as the least damaging way for the government to transfer wealth from some citizens to others. Either way, the UBI is an idea whose time has finally come, but it has to be done right.

First, my big caveat: A UBI will do the good things I claim only if it replaces all other transfer payments and the bureaucracies that oversee them. If the guaranteed income is an add-on to the existing system, it will be as destructive as its critics fear.

Second, the system has to be designed with certain key features. In my version, every American citizen age 21 and older would get a $13,000 annual grant deposited electronically into a bank account in monthly installments. Three thousand dollars must be used for health insurance (a complicated provision I won’t try to explain here), leaving every adult with $10,000 in disposable annual income for the rest of their lives.

People can make up to $30,000 in earned income without losing a penny of the grant. After $30,000, a graduated surtax reimburses part of the grant, which would drop to $6,500 (but no lower) when an individual reaches $60,000 of earned income. Why should people making good incomes retain any part of the UBI? Because they will be losing Social Security and Medicare, and they need to be compensated.

I'm not entirely opposed to this line of thinking. One of my main concerns regarding the cold hard free market is the societal need for the old, disabled, and the increasing number of employables who are becoming less able to offer a contribution to the growing wealth machine. Automation, robots, AI, etc. are taking over more and more jobs that vast numbers of people used to hold. What work remains is not necessary for basic sustenance, and is optional work (e.g. arts, services), and yielding the lowest of compensation (with growing competition). Also, I feel we (in the US) are well past our limit for a consumption based economy. We can not sustainably rely on increased global consumption to sustain economic growth.

Where we probably differ on this UBI idea is that while there will be a large number of people living on the minimum, most people will still have the freedom to acquire wealth without restraint.

What I believe outrages the communists, is the thought of anyone doing better than anyone else. Their grand theory is to mandate that everyone toss their contribution of effort into a large pot (usually government controlled), then doll it out as needed. See, that seems fair, unless you are in anyway gifted, and can contribute much more to the pot than the average comrade. Eventually what kills it, is the entire lack of motivation to excel without reward (and corruption/mismanagement by the ones holding the pot). Hence, the failed Soviet/Cuban dictatorship model, where slackers and other undesirables get sent off to gulag prison camps, or subsist in barrios until they die.

The cold hard reality is that our system doesn't really need as many people anymore, so we'll need to craft a society that can thrive without requiring them to work everyday in order to survive. I'm on the pro-freedom side of this.

[Ashock]

Good for you. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact the system oppresses, discriminates and in general treats Autistic people and other disabled people like doodoo because they are viewed as inferior, and a danger to profits.

I too, am on the spectrum. The lecture is riddled with false equivalences. The core issue is the value of a person's contribution to society.

LOL moment...

Because of this devaluation, people with disabilities have been neglected, abused and killed since the dawn of class society.

Ever heard of "Caeadas of Taygetus" near Sparti? Or, child abandonment & infanticide in pre-Christian Nordic culture.

Using his example, being blind. If the person becomes trained in using their remaining senses to offer value, such as Jack Chen, then our society is able to fit them in.

Jack Chen would not fit in the majority of jobs available since he lacks a sense necessary for most jobs. But, he, as did I, have overcome our disabilities to find a niche within the system. But, more and more, due to laws like the ADA, employers are encouraged (aka. required ) to accommodate people with disabilities. My employer has a schedule of alterations needed across these ancient buildings built in 1902 that will cost millions of dollars. Our web site maintainers have spent thousands of hours making our sites accessible to the sight impaired.

The sociological issue is not disability. It is that we have a portion of our society that does not fit the free market model of Pre-K to 12th grade mandatory public education, optional post-secondary education, then to find work for 90,000 hours to provide an income for yourself (and optional family) until retirement. Then, depending on how much you saved or invested, you may or may not be above the poverty line until you die. The challenge to ushering us all into the communist utopia is that people like to remain free to make their own decisions on how they lead their lives.

Have you heard of the UBI proposal by Charles Murray?

The UBI has brought together odd bedfellows. Its advocates on the left see it as a move toward social justice; its libertarian supporters (like Friedman) see it as the least damaging way for the government to transfer wealth from some citizens to others. Either way, the UBI is an idea whose time has finally come, but it has to be done right.

First, my big caveat: A UBI will do the good things I claim only if it replaces all other transfer payments and the bureaucracies that oversee them. If the guaranteed income is an add-on to the existing system, it will be as destructive as its critics fear.

Second, the system has to be designed with certain key features. In my version, every American citizen age 21 and older would get a $13,000 annual grant deposited electronically into a bank account in monthly installments. Three thousand dollars must be used for health insurance (a complicated provision I won’t try to explain here), leaving every adult with $10,000 in disposable annual income for the rest of their lives.

People can make up to $30,000 in earned income without losing a penny of the grant. After $30,000, a graduated surtax reimburses part of the grant, which would drop to $6,500 (but no lower) when an individual reaches $60,000 of earned income. Why should people making good incomes retain any part of the UBI? Because they will be losing Social Security and Medicare, and they need to be compensated.

I'm not entirely opposed to this line of thinking. One of my main concerns regarding the cold hard free market is the societal need for the old, disabled, and the increasing number of employables who are becoming less able to offer a contribution to the growing wealth machine. Automation, robots, AI, etc. are taking over more and more jobs that vast numbers of people used to hold. What work remains is not necessary for basic sustenance, and is optional work (e.g. arts, services), and yielding the lowest of compensation (with growing competition). Also, I feel we (in the US) are well past our limit for a consumption based economy. We can not sustainably rely on increased global consumption to sustain economic growth.

Where we probably differ on this UBI idea is that while there will be a large number of people living on the minimum, most people will still have the freedom to acquire wealth without restraint.

What I believe outrages the communists, is the thought of anyone doing better than anyone else. Their grand theory is to mandate that everyone toss their contribution of effort into a large pot (usually government controlled), then doll it out as needed. See, that seems fair, unless you are in anyway gifted, and can contribute much more to the pot than the average comrade. Eventually what kills it, is the entire lack of motivation to excel without reward (and corruption/mismanagement by the ones holding the pot). Hence, the failed Soviet/Cuban dictatorship model, where slackers and other undesirables get sent off to gulag prison camps, or subsist in barrios until they die.

The cold hard reality is that our system doesn't really need as many people anymore, so we'll need to craft a society that can thrive without requiring them to work everyday in order to survive. I'm on the pro-freedom side of this.

One of the most basic problems with communism, is that instead of striving to get rid of the poor, it strives to get rid of the rich.

[FireIceTalon]

One of the most basic problems with communism, is that instead of striving to get rid of the poor, it strives to get rid of the rich.

Incorrect. It strives to get rid of both.

The existence of the bourgeois and the proletariat presuppose one another. Communism is the elimination or negation of the present order of things. By destroying private capital and eliminating the bourgeois (as a class), the proletariat would also eliminate itself, as a class by default. They don't exist independently of one another, their mutual existence forms a social relationship, specifically to the means of production. Communism is a classless, stateless society; not a society full of poor people or rich people. It just so happens that only the proletariat can achieve this, since the bourgeois is not a potentially revolutionary class (nor should they be, since the current social order is in their objective class interests). There are no bourgeois or proletarians in communism, no rich or poor, just human beings. I guess the thought of people not being divided into classes anymore, no longer competing for resources, and no longer putting others in categories or labeling them is terrifying to some people. The need for us to categorize and label others has always been a bit strange and at times even creepy to me.

The irony of capitalism is that theoretically, it strives to get rid of poor people, but in the end it actually just creates MORE of them. Just one of its trillion or so contradictions.

@Kandrathe, interesting post, and thanks for genuinely responding with a real post. I'll give it a closer read and reply later when I have more time.

[Ashock]

One of the most basic problems with communism, is that instead of striving to get rid of the poor, it strives to get rid of the rich.

Incorrect. It strives to get rid of both.

The existence of the bourgeois and the proletariat presuppose one another. Communism is the elimination or negation of the present order of things. By destroying private capital and eliminating the bourgeois (as a class), the proletariat would also eliminate itself, as a class by default. They don't exist independently of one another, their mutual existence forms a social relationship, specifically to the means of production. Communism is a classless, stateless society; not a society full of poor people or rich people. It just so happens that only the proletariat can achieve this, since the bourgeois is not a potentially revolutionary class (nor should they be, since the current social order is in their objective class interests). There are no bourgeois or proletarians in communism, no rich or poor, just human beings. I guess the thought of people not being divided into classes anymore, no longer competing for resources, and no longer putting others in categories or labeling them is terrifying to some people. The need for us to categorize and label others has always been a bit strange and at times even creepy to me.

The irony of capitalism is that theoretically, it strives to get rid of poor people, but in the end it actually just creates MORE of them. Just one of its trillion or so contradictions.

@Kandrathe, interesting post, and thanks for genuinely responding with a real post. I'll give it a closer read and reply later when I have more time.

I'm actually going to give you a semi-real response.

Here's the thing. The USSR was a truly evil empire. Practically every name that you use for quotes in your posts like Rosa there, was celebrated back in that country. For example, my elementary school was on the corner of Sverdlov avenue and Luxenburg street.

Just simple logic alone would dictate that anyone who was praised in that monstrosity of a country, would themselves be pretty damn:
A) Evil or
B) Real stupid

See you have to understand something.
I usually am not in the mood to comment or argue with someone of your err... stature. I simply don't have time at work and I don't waste my time at home on that. Well, right now there is a temporary lull at work, and I do get bored.
So at least for now, I will occasionally call you out on the utter фекал that you spew out. Considering that for the 1st twelve years of my life I had never seen a roll of toilet paper, you know due to the great communist country that I lived in, I am not a stranger to cleaning up crap without it.

[FireIceTalon]

I too, am on the spectrum.

Well, now that two others have come out and admitted this, I guess it is high time I do the same - I am on the spectrum, and I was the person I spoke about in the first post of this thread. I feel a bit safer and more comfortable coming out with this now that I know there are others with my condition here and the chances of discrimination are less likely. So there you have it, I am a communist aspie.

The lecture is riddled with false equivalences.

Such as?

The core issue is the value of a person's contribution to society.

I think this speaks to the heart of the matter. Capitalism treats people as that - how much value can they produce, and reduces our self-worth to this alone. Because profit is the driving motif of the system, its values are hinged upon how much value a person can produce, and therefore what that person is worth. It's pretty degrading and dehumanizing if you think about it.

Ever heard of "Caeadas of Taygetus" near Sparti? Or, child abandonment & infanticide in pre-Christian Nordic culture.

I have now.

But, not limited to the advent of the class system.

But even pre-Christian Nordic culture has a class element involved, in the sense that young children and infants have no autonomy or self-determination over their fate, and are abandoned or killed off for whatever reason.

It was common thought across the political left/right in the US, during the Progressive Era (early - mid-1900's), that "undesirables" should be sterilized (even here in rural Minnesota).

Eugenics is a largely archaic and backwards ideal, which thankfully is largely discredited now. Someone once told me that it was one of those ideas that sounded great in theory but terrible in practice, but I think even this is giving it too much credit. Aside from the fact it is a slippery slope to racism and other bad ideals, it tries to make objective what entails a good or bad human being which is impossible to do. Eugenics requires someone to do some selecting of some sort, and even without biases it would still result in terrible human rights violations. As I think about it more, it sounds awful in theory even, let alone practice.

Using his example, being blind. If the person becomes trained in using their remaining senses to offer value, such as Jack Chen, then our society is able to fit them in.

This raises the question, why do we have to fit in, in the first place?
The way current society is configured treats us as though we are a burden, and that we have to be the ones to change. The system is structured based on 'one-size-fits-all' parameters, which doesn't work because people have different needs. Disabled people especially so. Society needs to be reconfigured in such a way as though it can meet everyone's unique needs, not force people to fit within the given structure and punish them if they don't/can't. Capitalism can't be reconfigured to meet the unique needs of disabled people because its internal logic dictates that profits come first, everything else is secondary or an afterthought. It may make some concessions in certain cases (moreso for people who have a sensory disability like blindness or deafness), that are necessarily conducive to obtaining profits (blind and deaf people need access to public places as both workers and consumers).

Jack Chen would not fit in the majority of jobs available since he lacks a sense necessary for most jobs. But, he, as did I, have overcome our disabilities to find a niche within the system.

This goes back to what I said above, we shouldn't be the ones have to "fit in", society should be taylored in a way that our needs are met as much as anyone elses. Sure some people can overcome their disability, but the point is that we shouldn't have to in the first place, whether we can or can't. It's like the people who want to find a cure for autism, as if we have some disease that needs to be cured instead of just accepting us as we are and creating an environment in which we can function.

I think it's also worth noting that having a sensory disability like blindness is viewed very differently from having a neurological disability. The latter has negative connotations and stigmas attached to it that the former does not, and we are viewed as being a burden placed on society since they are viewed as disorders, capable and necessary of a potential cure, to relieve society of having to care for these people - instead of a society based on neurodiversity (which as you can see by now, is what I advocate for). This isn't to say that I'd rather be blind than have Aspergers, but nonetheless the way autistics are currently viewed, portrayed in mainstream media, and treated in public is utterly despicable.

But, more and more, due to laws like the ADA, employers are encouraged (aka. required ) to accommodate people with disabilities.

Unfortunately, the ADA and similar laws are paper tigers. It is way too easy for employers to use a variety of pretexts for not hiriing, firing, or paying people with disabilities less to do the same job (the same is true of ethnic minorities, women, LGBTQ persons, etc in correspondence to the laws that "theoretically" protect them from discrimination in the workplace). Proving you were discriminated against in the work place is usually very difficult, and few people have the energy, time, and money to pursue a lawsuit and all the stress that comes along with it, especially when the chances of success are small at best.

The sociological issue is not disability. It is that we have a portion of our society that does not fit the free market model of Pre-K to 12th grade mandatory public education, optional post-secondary education, then to find work for 90,000 hours to provide an income for yourself (and optional family) until retirement.

Changing the education system to better fit the needs of disabled people is certainly a start, though I doubt it is fundamental enough. The reason is because the education system itself is an outgrowth of the given social order and its material conditions. Primary education teaches us to respect authority, be obedient, and work hard - all values conducive to the profit system. Higher education certainly has a less narrow realm with more room for critical thought, but even here, majors that are profitable are far more emphasized then ones which are not. I am sure there are some people who become doctors because they want to help others, but I think by and large that is a secondary reason, most become such because it is a very lucrative field with potentially large salaries first and foremost. This of course, creates a market of healthcare professionals which are often mediocre in quality and cost an arm and a leg (pun intended). Further, it is all the more difficult for many people with disabilities to get into these types of lucrative industries. You can only change a Superstructure so much within a certain Base, and even then, it is always susceptible to being rolled back.

The challenge to ushering us all into the communist utopia is that people like to remain free to make their own decisions on how they lead their lives.

Well, one of the points of communism is to give people this self determination. Under the current system, you have to sustain yourself based on the needs of private capital, and you must choose a specific field that is profitable regardless of how much use to society it is. (Advertising Execs, for instance, can make a ton of money but have one of the most useless jobs in the world - their goal is to get people to buy more crap that they probably don't need). Right now by and large, our boss tells us what to produce, how much of it and when to produce, when we must come into work and produce value for him/her, and basically, every aspect in the workplace is dictated by the owner of capital. In short, we have no self determination under the present order. In most industries and work places, workers have very little if any say in the decision making process regarding just about anything. This of course, also effects how we live our lives to a great degree OUTSIDE the work place.

Have you heard of the UBI proposal by Charles Murray?

I'm not entirely opposed to this line of thinking. One of my main concerns regarding the cold hard free market is the societal need for the old, disabled, and the increasing number of employables who are becoming less able to offer a contribution to the growing wealth machine. Automation, robots, AI, etc. are taking over more and more jobs that vast numbers of people used to hold. What work remains is not necessary for basic sustenance, and is optional work (e.g. arts, services), and yielding the lowest of compensation (with growing competition). Also, I feel we (in the US) are well past our limit for a consumption based economy. We can not sustainably rely on increased global consumption to sustain economic growth.

I don't know. I'm not a social democrat, but I think I'd just rather have Sweden or Denmark's model welfare state and social democracy than this. While I might pay more in taxes for healthcare and education in the LONG run, for me, and most people, point of access is key. Paying for it in taxes over time is just easier for most people than getting that huge doctor bill in the mail, ya know what I mean? Living with debt, of any kind, is one of the most depressing and dehumanizing experiences you can endure.

As for automation, it has become a dirty word that is synonmous with "job taker", and to some extent, this claim is legitimate. That being said, it doesn't have to be. When we think of automation, honestly we should get excited because that means we have to toil less each day now! That is less time I need to spend producing value for my boss, I love that idea! Unfortunately, in the context of capitalism, that means our livlihood becomes compromised and our living standards lowered. Under socialism, automation would be a beautiful thing, and in fact, we could devote more resources to improving it so eventually, we will have to do very little work at all. Then we could devote more time to what really matters: spending time with our families, friends, and just enjoying life more in general, with minimal worries.

What I believe outrages the communists, is the thought of anyone doing better than anyone else.

I'm not sure what you mean by this exactly. Do you mean in terms of something petty like me having a nicer car than my neighbor, or vice versa?

Or are you implying something more fundamental, like say "class envy" (although this term is rather rhetorical and has nothing to do with communist views of capitalism)?

Their grand theory is to mandate that everyone toss their contribution of effort into a large pot (usually government controlled), then doll it out as needed. See, that seems fair, unless you are in anyway gifted, and can contribute much more to the pot than the average comrade.

Well, in truth, for someone who is more gifted, indeed communism won't be fair to them if meritocracy is what you seek. But that is kind of the point. Being talented in something means you excel at a particular thing better than someone else does, however that doesn't entitle you to more goods and services that the society offers than it does to anyone else. It just means you are the better person fitted for that paritcular duty, but it doesn't make you a "better person" as capitalist ideology would have you believe. Yea, sorry, no one gets special treatment under communism (except disabled people of course, who need accomidations and special circumstances to make their lives better). We don't hold the ideal that some people are better or more important than others as is often perpetuated by capitalist values. Communism is based around human need, and doesn't concern itself with meritocracy. Perhaps in the early stages of a post-capitalist society, there may be certain situations or times where a form of meritocracy might be temporarily desirable or even necessary as production and distribution of resources is reorganized along socialist lines to make the transition of society on this premise easier and smoother, but thats all it would be: a means, and not an end.

Eventually what kills it, is the entire lack of motivation to excel without reward (and corruption/mismanagement by the ones holding the pot).

Think of it this way: The reward is that you reap from the benefits of your own labor, and that most of the value you produce isn't expropriated by some boss. Goods are produced purely for human need and consumption in a communist society, not for profit. Because of this, we can use resources and technology as a means (even in a communist society, development does not stop) that is predicated upon improving all spheres of life instead of lining the pockets of CEO's and their politician guardians. That in itself, is a reward if you ask me, being able to have access to all the goods and services that society offers. The means are just as important as the ends. I would take much more pride in my "work" if I knew that what I was producing benefitted the entire society instead of just 1 or 2 people. The work itself would become much more fulfilling, instead of waking up everyday dreading having to go work a shitty job (or 2 or 3 for some people) just to make ends meet, living from paycheck to paycheck all because I wasn't born into the "right" family. Generally speaking, not having to toil day in and day out, while having all my basic needs to sustain myself met - while simultaneously being able to allocate my talents to the improvement of society instead of for someone elses profit, sounds pretty rewarding to me.

Hence, the failed Soviet/Cuban dictatorship model, where slackers and other undesirables get sent off to gulag prison camps, or subsist in barrios until they die.

While I don't think these are the models for future revolutionary movements, I think people put too much emphasis on the negatives of the USSR and Cuba and overlook the good things that came out of them, in particular Cuba. Castro (RIP btw) was no worse than any US president if you ask me, and the conditions of the Cuban people are far better than they were under the previous US backed Batista regime. Before the revolution, most Cubans couldn't even read or write. Now, they have a higher literacy rate than we do, a equally long life expectancy, lower infant mortality rate, and virtually 0% unemployment and homelessness. The US has a for-profit mass incarceration system with more people in prison than ANY other country in history (most of which are on a drug charge, and most of which are POC), spends more money on said prison system than it does on its public education system, Bush and Obama together, have deported more people than every other US president combined, and we have poverty stricken communities galore that help to continiously feed the for-profit prison system. In fact, I'd say much of Cuba's problems stemmed, ironcially, from the US embargo placed on them, which was just as big of a human rights violation against the Cuban people as anything Castro did. Also, it didn't help matters that we tried to take his country over (Bay of Pigs, which marked the first defeat for US Imperialism, Vietnam was the second) and restore capitalism and assasinate him, oh, 638 times I think it was. Finally, Cuba was vital in fighting aparthied in Africa, while the UK & USA was, at best, indifferent to it and in fact very welcoming of it considering its own Jim Crow laws and maintained close ties with the South African government.

1 more fun fact: After Hurricane Katrina, Castro offered to send doctors from Cuba to New Orleans to help victims there. Of course it was declined, while the Bush Administration sat around and did well, nothing. None of this is to say Fidel was an angel, but in the midst of all the anti-communist propaganda here in America, some objectivity is required.

The cold hard reality is that our system doesn't really need as many people anymore, so we'll need to craft a society that can thrive without requiring them to work everyday in order to survive. I'm on the pro-freedom side of this.

Again, this is part of the point of socialism. Capitalism requires us to work more because of its endless pursuit of profits and unsustainable economic growth. That is why we have "so much poverty in the midst of plenty", because overproduction creates artificial scarcity.

I don't view socialism to be utopian, and in fact, it is the most rational and logical way for people to organize themselves (people themselves are far from always being rational or logical, but this is because they live in a system that is largely irrational and illogical, as well as contradictory). But even if it were utopian, well, I don't think that makes it an ideal less worth fighting for.

Anyways, glad we could have an interesting and civil discussion on this, even if we probably don't agree on much. I think the point of these debates though isn't about converting anyone to their respective sides, but to engage the issues and think deeper about them. I doubt I will convert anyone here to being a communist (hey, if I do, thats just a bonus), which is fine. The point is to convey an alternative viewpoint that you don't see everyday (my posts here not withstanding ) and shake things up a bit, to get you to think about things that maybe you didn't think of before.

[FireIceTalon]

I'm actually going to give you a semi-real response.

I'm a bit disappointed. You didn't even attempt to engage anything in my previous reply to you

Here's the thing. The USSR was a truly evil empire. Practically every name that you use for quotes in your posts like Rosa there, was celebrated back in that country. For example, my elementary school was on the corner of Sverdlov avenue and Luxenburg street.

Emotive argument. And what by evil do you mean exactly?

Further, you are not critiquing communism here, but rather it seems, the 'cult of personality', which has nothing to do with tenets of communist theory as put forth in the writings of Marx and Engels. Most communists are in fact opposed to 'cult of personalities' as we view them to be a product of bougeois society and similar enough to unscientific 'great man theories' of history. Even Fidel Castro condemned the cult of personality. Your entire argument here is a strawman - you are not even arguing against that which I advocate for! LOL.

Just simple logic alone would dictate that anyone who was praised in that monstrosity of a country, would themselves be pretty damn:
A) Evil or
B) Real stupid

So by this "circular logic", the USSR was evil. The USSR praised Rosa Luxumburg. Therefore, Rosa Luxemburg was evil (or just really stupid). This type of thinking is at best, dubious. At worst, extremely dangerous. I guess the next thing you will say is that if I had a daughter and named her Rosa Luxemburg (I am speaking hypothetically here as I wouldn't do this) that by default she would be evil too, right?

If you had read even an ounce of Marxist literature or history, then you should know that Luxumburg was arguably the most prominent and vocal Marxist critic of the Russian Revolution and understood its problems well before Stalin ever came to power. She mercilessly critiqued the flaws in Lenin's theory of 'Democratic Centralism' and Vanguardism, and understood that it was not a continuation of Marx's theories, but a distortion of them; and thus the potential for the Revolution to go from being proletarian in character into a bureaucratic regime. So even if we assume the USSR to be "evil" (and thats still a big if), the notion that Luxemburg was evil is false given the facts I just stated. Unless you have some other premise in mind? I doubt you do.

As for her being "real stupid", lol, this is just more of your childish comedy talking. Luxemburg was intellectually brilliant by any measure, regardless of whatever political framework you choose to subscribe to. You by comparison, are an intellectual peon next to the likes of Rosa Luxemburg. Maybe you should go read some of her works and obtain some factual information first so you at least have SOME idea of what you are talking about making an argument, instead of arguing from emotions and watching the Nazi shitheap that is Breitbart. And I'm not saying this cause I'm a Marxist. There have been plenty of brilliant and notable right-wing thinkers too; many of the conservative philosophers that became the foundation for modern right-wing thought were quite intelligent, even if I vehemently disagree with everything they wrote.

I think its time to put you back on ignore. Kandrathes arguments are far more reasonable, interesting to read, and much more worthy of my time to engage than your drivel.

[Jester]

Just simple logic alone would dictate that anyone who was praised in that monstrosity of a country, would themselves be pretty damn:
A) Evil or
B) Real stupid

Presumably, then, if Lenin said that Erasmus was a great humanistic philosopher, we would then conclude that Erasmus was either evil or real stupid? This is an obvious fallacy.

-Jester

[Archon_Wing]

I hope they didn't praise running water and electricity either.

Though it certainly can be used for evil.

That being said, I've noted quite a few questionable groups that seem to champion autism as a cause. Some include the anti-vaccine crowd (one particular sickening one is "Age of Autism" which seems to contain writings from parents that regret their children's existences as a plague) and Autism Speaks which has posted some rather not so flattering videos publicly concerning the mater. So sometimes, $$$ is in the factors.

[Ashock]

Just simple logic alone would dictate that anyone who was praised in that monstrosity of a country, would themselves be pretty damn:
A) Evil or
B) Real stupid

Presumably, then, if Lenin said that Erasmus was a great humanistic philosopher, we would then conclude that Erasmus was either evil or real stupid? This is an obvious fallacy.

-Jester

Everything that Lenin said or did, was either evil or a lie.

Let me give you a short list of those that the USSR celebrated, in my time there and before, not couting Russians of course:

1. Marx and Engels
2. Mao before the early 70s
3. Luxenburg
4. Hitler before 1941. Not really celebrated, but admired and respected.
5. Angela Davis
6. Ho Chi Minh
7. Jimmy Carter (no, I'm not joking)
8. Fidel Castro, favorite lapdog of the Politburo.

I'm sure I'm forgetting many, but I did say it will be a short list.

See, the reality is that communism is built on a gigantic lie and propagated through propaganda and indoctrination, especially of the young. This is why it is important to eliminate illiteracy, as reading was the best method to spread the propaganda. I trust absolutely NOTHING that a communist says, because without lies, he has nothing.

I strongly suggest reading Victor Suvorov's "Aquarium" and some of his other, especially autobiographical works. He was a captain or major I believe (been many years since I read them) in the GRU and defected to GB in the late 70s.

My grandfather before he died, told me many things. He was a KGB major.
I KNOW that Suvorov's autobiographic books are factual.

You sheltered Western liberals understand NOTHING at all about how the world outside of your little bubbles works. The Matrix is very difficult to break out of.