31 January 2013

Communism (Marxism) is not Socialism

Now that the political bloodbath is over in the US, I feel it is time to set the record straight, so to speak, as to what socialism is versus what communism is. The reason for this is because my "conservative" friends use the terms interchangeably.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, have vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of the co-operative wealth flow more abundantly - only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe upon its banners: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
(K. Marx: Critique of the Gotha Programme)

Marx believed that capitalism creates the proletariat class, who have nothing to sell but their labor. For a socialist state to happen, the proletariat must take power violently from those in command of the capitalist state. This is not a peaceful revolution. New classes win power through violent revolution. There is not a peaceful change in ideology. Most recent example would be the fall of the Soviet Union.

Those to claim that the democrats in office are now building a socialist state are wholeheartedly wrong. What they are witnessing is simple democracy and the whim of the people. It is the nature of democracy and a capitalistic society.

Communism evolves from socialism, according to Marx. Communist society is a classless society. Marx: Communism, which evolves peacefully from socialism, is a classless society under which the state will wither away. Socialist society is a classed society, albeit one without bourgeoisie society.

08 January 2013

Genocide can be a good thing

There are new problems in society, such as reactive attachment disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_attachment_disorder, that all stem from abusive childhoods and such childhoods are producing adults who perpetuate the damage that was applied to them. The thesis here is what do we do with said individuals after we have identified them? Do we allow them to breed? To continue to exist?

In theory we are all born as blank slates and our mores and actions are learned from our caregivers. This is not to deny inherited traits whatsoever. Part of who we are is genetic. Much of who we become though is learned. And in the latter is where the issues arise. To borrow from Draper, what we become is directly related to the humans we deal with, not non-human entities. There is no interference from some "Creator" being.

A child born of parents who have one or both as alcoholics will most likely become one themself. That is the simple genetics of the situation. Only a genetic miscue would prevent it. The point of this is that there are matters where pure genetics influence the outcome. And this will dissuade an argument for a "Creator" being.

Back to my thesis, children are not born evil. That is a moral imposition. A parent, or both, then directly influence the progression their child has along the moral "norm" scale. While many try to ingrain positive moral basis in their child, a rare few do not, and in fact do the opposite.

A person that abuses a child, either physically or mentally, destroys the delicate threshold one has over learning what is right and wrong, well before one must make those decisions. That person did learn from another to be the way they are. That is the nurture argument in a bullet-proof shell. But at the same time they also know that they were created to be the way they are. And then they choose to create others as such.

What I propose is the removal of such individuals from society. Yes, a form of genocide if one will. Because these individuals actively perpetuate cruel acts and train others to do the same, they are not worthy of remaining in society (insert Rorty argument here). A society without those that have learned to abuse should be free of it. And one can only imagine what such a society was able to accomplish, now free of the threat of physical/emotional pain...