Thoughts on how to improve the current system

[FireIceTalon]

Its an interesting thought, but I stick with my assertions that without honest competition, there will be no variety. Without incentive, people *will* do a bare minimum required to survive. This also means factories that *could* get a cheaper rate on materials (and the labor thereof) will settle for whatever is the status quo because there is no incentive to improve. I suppose I'll have to provide links instead of anecdotal evidence, however I'm reminded of some of the social workers I've met in my life who work for the city and hit their glass ceiling and I wonder, if these people with these attitudes worked in the private sector, they'd be fired in a heartbeat, but because they work for the city and are protected by not only the city but powerful unions, they can do whatever they want, close shop early despite their listed hours, and treat you like crap; lovely system.

If by variety you mean the goods appropriated in society, then this is a trivial issue for Communists. We couldn't care less how much variety in the world there is, so long as you do not subjugate the labor of others. If not subjugating the labor of others means less variety, so be it^^ Remember, we seek a better society - not a utopian one since that indeed is a pipe dream.

Another myth is that under Socialism, the quality of goods will decline, which I very strongly disagree with. If anything, the quality of goods will IMPROVE, for the following reasons. First, under Capitalism, products and services are distributed for a bottomline purpose: Profit. Under Socialism, they are distributed for the sake of themselves. Because the idea of Capitalism is to make a profit - minimum labor, maximum capital, and cheaper resources are desired, so production costs are less. How many companies out there cut corners in quality to distribute more goods for less? A lot. Under Socialism, the products are made with the highest possible quality the first time around, and only as technology itself improves will new products replace older ones. In Capitalism, new products are already often made well before being distributed, so that people buy the older ones first and then buy the new ones when they come out - again, profit maximization is the order here. Some people are wary of this, and they will wait for the Ipad 3 to come out rather than buy the Ipad 2, but this is the exception and not the rule. Capitalism: buy more junk that you dont need. Socialism: but less, higher quality goods that need to be replace only once in a while. Why do you think there is so much advertising in our world? Corporations know that people, deep down, prefer leisure time over material goods - so they have to shove this stuff down our throats to make sure we keep consuming, and consuming, and consuming. Numerous polls have shown this. A Socialist society is much more compatible, whether people believe it or not, with what they really want - more leisure time, and less material goods. Interestingly enough, you could actually have more material goods in a Socialist society than in our current society, because there no longer be any such thing as a 'budget'. But nevertheless, that is not Socialism's purpose, at least not its fundamental purpose. Furthermore, resources would be allocated much better and wasted far less in Socialism, than in Capitalism. The amount money spent on raw materials that ended up being wasted in the military industrial complex alone is staggering.

As far as public and private sectors go, I do not see a huge difference in how employees treat customers in either sector. It is the same thing regardless. That being said, Labor Unions are just like the 'welfare state' - a product of Capitalism. As long as you have a system of class antagonisms, you are going to have institutions that protect or help the little guys to some extent - to keep our Capitalist system intact. I am of the opinion that in a Communist society, labor unions probably would no longer be needed - though some other Communists may disagree with me. I would see them being needed in Socialism - during the dictatorship of the proletariat, during a time when there were still reactionary elements within society - but in the latter stages of Socialism when "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" has been reached, I think they would phase themselves out. But in short, to hell with the private sector: our goal isn't in the interest of those who own private property anyway (it isn't meant to be) - it is in the interest of the PROLETARIAN - the working class, aka the majority of society. "Privatization" is a dirty word for us Commies, just like "Socialism" is for Capitalists.

This is a pipe-dream in your system. There will be a car. It will transport people. It will be fuel efficient and roomy for a family of four and space to fit groceries. Without access to cheap materials to create goods, private businesses like Toyota will dry-up. And then of course if all materials are available for everyone, expect to see mad-men using all of Earth's mineral resources to build a tower of babble to the moon and back, or mega car companies hogging all the resources. You talk of true freedom, but you will still need rules because people will still do stupid things, even at an evolved state of consciousness.

You make it sound like people are too dumb to live in a Socialist society. I don't think this is true. Yes, in our current society, many are brainwashed - but there is a difference between not understanding the material circumstances in which we live and flat out being "stupid". No one will be allowed to "hog" resources - remember "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - would be the governing law on the distribution of resources.

I don't believe that. If you ever read my view on altruism, you'd know why. I think everything we humans do we do for survival rather we realize it or not. As proof of concept, (I'll find some links to New Scientist when I get home ~ at work), scientists infused a salt mineral with RNA and it exhibited signs of life we consider sacred (i.e. 10-commandments) such as protection of its reproduced self amongst others. I believe the concepts of protecting children from harm or exploitation, laws against murder or theft or even rape, these are things we consider (myself included) to be wrong but even stop to think why? Did GOD tell us this? No, the concept is thus because its written in our DNA - we cannot avoid it. Our actions, our logic is survivalistic by its very nature - just being alive. We only "give" things to others because it make us feel good inside; how selfish. If we felt nothing at all, we would not give for no reason. And why do we give? To those less fortunate perhaps our need to help our species. To relatives on special occasions to fit in to the social conformity of which you speak. There is no altruism, only survival, and hence there could never be an evolved state of consciousness to form a Communistic society as you describe. Just being aware of it does not change the fact that its an inescapable truth.

Most of our actions we do because of survival yes - but that is the whole point of transferring into a Socialist society to begin with - so we do NOT have to base our life around our survival as we do in a Capitalist society. While some labor will still be required for our survival, our lives would no longer be centered around it. There would be much more time to focus on the quality of our living and improving our society instead of just trying to pay the bills and put food on the table every day. Of course, if that is what you like to do, in a Socialist society I don't think anyone would stop you from doing so. But regardless, we would no longer would be commodities of a a system that we depend upon for our survival, and our labor power would fully be within our own control instead of being subjugated by a factory owner.

Altruism DOES exist, but it isn't really what is needed to establish a Communist society anyway. Altruism in fact, would likely become more prominent from Communism itself - not the reverse. As I have said many times, history has shown time and again that peoples behavior and nature change as material conditions change - this isn't my opinion....this is one of the defining elements in every era of society thus far. You are still thinking in terms of Idealism - but we live in a Material world! What is needed to reach Communism is for people to shake all the different forms of Idealism that prevent them from realizing the material conditions of their existence - which is certainly possible. If it weren't - none history's previous revolutions would have ever taken place! The material conditions can be horrible as possible, but only when the revolutionary class realizes the conditions of its existence will revolution take place. The Bourgeois is reactionary now, but in Feudal society they were the revolutionary class.

We do not always give things to others because it makes us feel good. Most of the wealthy only donate to charity to use it as a tax write off so they can pay less in taxes - Most of them aren't doing it to make themselves feel good or out of the kindness of their hearts. The problem with the whole DNA argument is that it relies too much on Nature in the so-called "Nature vs. Nurture" debate, and it has long been proven that Nurture plays a VERY substantial role in human behavior and development, both physically and cognitively as my earlier examples stated.

As has always been the case. The victor is the hero, the looser the villain. Had Hitler won, he'd be the "savior" of the East.

Hitler was the villain regardless of the result. Only in the minds of reactionaries, self-righteous demagogues, and sociopaths would Hitler be seen as a hero. Now, the perspective on someone like Vladimir Lenin would probably be a lot more debatable, or the abolitionist that Kandrathe mentioned, John Brown.

I really don't understand how you to came to this conclusion. Pre-Feudalism times, and even today in 3rd world countries, you have war-lords who control small pockets of areas and often just rule - nothing more. They fight each other for more power, and sometimes innocents get caught up, sometimes not, but the revolution happens not because of constant brainwashing, but because the people are sick of living in decrepit, war-like conditions constantly. Ironically, it's really no different that how it was with native Indians here in the states, except these people nowadays are poor as hell and have no way to improve, but this is not because the people have been brainwashed into thinking this, but because they literally have nothing to give and hence no way to improve. Their lot in life is sealed unless a factory from a first world country opens in their province.

I didn't come to this conclusion - it is simply a fact of history. Indeed, revolution does take place because of unsatisfactory material conditions - the brainwashing isn't a reason for the revolution (or is a secondary reason at best) - it is a METHOD and tool used by the ruling class to prevent revolution by the ruled class from occurring to begin with. It is used to create an illusion that distracts or blinds the oppressed class from realizing the circumstances of the material conditions that their existence is contingent upon. Native Americans never did receive the justice they deserved, sadly. I would say there are few if any groups that have had it worse than they have. But during the Spanish Inquisition, we most certainly did brainwash them (with Christianity), and they never really have recovered or saw any real progress in the same way that other marginalized groups have for various material reasons.

The problem is right now, not only are people divided by class, but they are also divided within in their own class - in both the Bourgeois and the Proletarians. The former are divided in that they are competing against one another for economic and political supremacy, and the latter are divided by nationalism and religion and other social/cultural factors. Because the Bourgeois are in competition with one another, they have to keep the Proletarians interests divided - by illusion - even though all Proletarians have the same interest economically regardless of their nationality, gender, religious beliefs, and so forth. Reactionary ideals are forced upon them through a system of conditioning. Example: In Iran - their conditioning is anti-Americanism....on the other side of the same coin, ours is Islamaphobia. Working class Americans are being taught that all Muslims are the enemy and the line between normal Muslims and radical ones is becoming blurred. Muslims, for their part, are often unable to distinguish American policy from normal Americans themselves. They are taught to think we are all the enemy, that their actions are justified (though they are just as wrong as the actions of American Leadership) when the truth is many of us deplore US foreign policy. But this is a tool in both societies by the ruling class to keep their respective powers intact. And of course, they use the poor to fight their wars against eachother. This is why nationalism (and religion) has absolutely no place in Marxist thought - because nationalism is reactionary and is a tool used by the very powers we seek to abolish. This divide and conquer tactic is very effective. As I said before, it is much easier for the working class to blame another sector of the working class for their problems - because we are taught to view them as different, or as being "the enemy" - when in reality this is far from the case. These intrinsic divisions must be eliminated - and only then can the Proletarian break the shackles of false consciousness and indoctrination to achieve class consciousness and begin its revolution vs the Bourgeois. This in itself will be a long process, but as Capitalism and its imperialistic nature slides further into crisis, more jobs are lost and become more scare, food becomes harder to put on the table, the cost of living rises, times in general get tougher, and in the meantime, the rich get richer - it is only a matter of time before they wake up and realize they are being duped. As the saying goes, "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time" (I think that's how it goes). Although Marxism is Internationalist, when the Proletarian revolution occurs, it will begin on a national level - because naturally they will have to deal with their immediate enemy first, the local Bourgeois - meaning that American Proletarians will revolt not versus Bourgeois of other nations, but against the American Bourgeois. The same holds true in other nations also.

I'll edit my post and try to find links to prove my point, but for the most part, once we've hit our glass ceiling, incentive is gone and interest wanes. At this point, boredom seeps in. How many times have you seen someone you know take up a job they "love" only to find it's turned into a 9-5 "grind" after a few years. Work is work. Monotony, no matter how challenging, is still the same thing over and over after awhile. People will not continue to challenge themselves under these circumstances. In a society where everything they want is handed to them, and there is no competitive reason to improve or ability to do so because all resources are owned by the government, I'm 100% sure people will get lazy, vastly more than you are willing to accept.

I wanted to give this more time, but I have to return to work. Hope it came out the way I think it sounds.

Again, there is NO State in Communism, thus resources will be controlled by all of society, not a select few. And if laziness meant the end of society, than Bourgeois society would have ended long ago since the majority of them, besides finding more ways to leech off and exploit the labor of the working class, do very little labor yet have everything - and those who work for a living usually have very little. As far as boredom goes, A simple remedy to this would be that people could rotate between the types of labor they take part in, within a Socialist society - in our current system this isnt really possible. But some people truly love what they do and wouldn't want to give it up also, thus working for them isnt a chore since they enjoy what they do. Even the most undesirable of jobs in a Socialist society would have more meaning to them, since no persons labor is subjugated anymore and their survival is no longer contingent on economic conditions. Any job will eventually become a "chore" after awhile if people lack self-autonomy over the means of production that defines their existence.