[Aesthetic]

I've been maturing this idea on my own for a little while, but I wanted to consult the forum (all ideologies welcome, obviously). One of the primary forces behind the classical-liberal-derived ideologies is the concept of the profit motive. It is what allegedly drives the nation forward (competition, innovation, etc.). I think it is generally fair to say that this is the strongest of other influences within the capitalist discourse. While there are other motives for competition and innovation, profit appears to be the primary mover or at least is enshrined as such. What, then, is the "motive" of socialism/social democracy/communism? What drive can be cultivated, refined, and enlarged that will prevent regression to state-dependency, laziness, etc. that become possible without the capitalist slave drivers? I would imagine that without this drive, which I wish to better uncover, degeneration of a social democracy is almost guaranteed. Is it a state motive, through state-worship? A fear-motive, of socialist retribution? Excitement and passion driven by constant revolution? Something else more complex, and multi-faceted? Thanks for your input.

[Kman]

What, then, is the "motive" of socialism/social democracy/communism?

Fear and the threat of either jailtime or death, communism removes the carrot that capitalism has which rewards hard work, and since this carrot is no longer there in an equal society the communist leaders have to impose severe penalties on people in order to get them to work just a little bit.

Social democracy still retain some elements of capitalism within it, it still provides slightly higher rewards to people that work so its a kind of soft-communism or inhibited capitalism and this reduces the amount of draconian laws you have to pass in the short term atleast.

I would imagine that without this drive, which I wish to better uncover, degeneration of a social democracy is almost guaranteed. Is it a state motive, through state-worship? A fear-motive, of socialist retribution? Excitement and passion driven by constant revolution? Something else more complex, and multi-faceted? Thanks for your input.

There is no solution for making communism work, its a system that goes against human nature and because of that it will never work, even if you create draconian punishments for people not contributing ''enough'', that will still never be able to replace or outcompete the inner will to succeed that capitalism awakens in most people.

[Preston Cole]

What, then, is the "motive" of socialism/social democracy/communism? What drive can be cultivated, refined, and enlarged that will prevent regression to state-dependency, laziness, etc. that become possible without the capitalist slave drivers?

The primary drive for socialists, I think, is the idea that the workers will control their own destiny by owning the means of production, thereby leading them to a happier life. Also, another drive is to create an international workers' unity and destroy capitalism all around the world. Obviously, they're both materialistic concepts and will always fall short of their intended goals. In other words, socialist movements will become nationalist once their totalitarianism sets in and they realize that international unity is a fluffy dream. It can't be any other way--the nation which hosts them becomes their friend and they will stick up for it just as much as fascists would, despite their "workers' state" rhetoric.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

ignore kman's comments.

What, then, is the "motive" of socialism/social democracy/communism? What drive can be cultivated, refined, and enlarged that will prevent regression to state-dependency, laziness, etc. that become possible without the capitalist slave drivers? I would imagine that without this drive, which I wish to better uncover, degeneration of a social democracy is almost guaranteed. Is it a state motive, through state-worship? A fear-motive, of socialist retribution? Excitement and passion driven by constant revolution? Something else more complex, and multi-faceted? Thanks for your input.

Self-interest is an idea. Nothing more. It is a way that we express an emotion to improve ourselves and keep ourselves alive. I think that if we have a reasonable ability to keep ourselves alive, the rest just sort of works itself out. It's true, people under capitalism seem to have a tendency to prefer their lifestyle, but then we don't really have a way of seeing how a socialist lifestyle would manifest itself. After all, I'm sure that the people who lived under feudalism probably had some way of feeling their life wasn't complete shit, and they probably adapted to what meager lifestyle they had as well. All I'm saying is that it's not capitalism itself which is responsible for the increase in quality of life, it only seems that way because the ways in which everyone's (the collective's) lives are "improved" is through the development of the means of production, and all capitalism really demonstrates is that the more socialized the means of production is, the better everyone's lives get. Even though capitalism satisfies someone's self-interest, we are still alienated from one another, and that in itself creates all kinds of real medical problems, just from living too stressed out and eating too much and taking too many pharmaceutical drugs, etc.

Anyway, not sure if that answered your question. lol

[Aesthetic]

. It's true, people under capitalism seem to have a tendency to prefer their lifestyle, but then we don't really have a way of seeing how a socialist lifestyle would manifest itself. After all, I'm sure that the people who lived under feudalism probably had some way of feeling their life wasn't complete shit, and they probably adapted to what meager lifestyle they had as well.

This is the main reason why I feel like Kman's point about "human nature" is pretty played out.

[Suska]

It's Christmas and I've had a few glasses of wine but I'll try to show you what I've seen recently.

Look, Marx is NOT AN EASY READ. Such things can take hundreds of years to filter into the mainstream of society. But fortunately THIS IDEA is not coming from just one direction, nor even just a marginalized direction. Christianity has at its root the same potential.

This is hard. If you don'y really try you probably won't get any of it.

At the heart of the argument for Communism there's an argument about human nature that revolves around consciousness. Essentially it suggests that we are defined by our context. That there is no other definition of the public person. That there is nothing other than this in social terms. A person is what they are in society. The counter-proposition which capitalism puts forth is essentially mechanistic individualism, that a person lives in their brain and is a survival machine.

You have soft skin. This I know, because you are human. A moderately sharp knife can spill your intestines. This is not a mistake of evolution, we are not built to fight, but to feel. Our vulnerabilities come with sensitivities and a subtle creative imagination. We are more parts storytellers than warriors. Bear with me.

The reason we are like this is that we've developed to cooperate. We share a consciousness. I cannot emphasize this strongly enough. The implications are so enormous it has been the source of religions, religious wars, revolutions, on-going animosity, you name it, much blood and rage. If we accept this idea - even remotely, even experimentally, it suggests that no matter what we do individually THE REALITY WE EXPERIENCE is essentially shared, essentially not ours individually, but part of a narrative. We are nothing without each other, and with each other we are what we do to each other.

If we accept this the whole paradigm of capitalism appears idiotic.

What do you want to be? An enemy? A creature in a vicious battle? A pawn of money? These questions become important when we cease to think of people as determined machines, and begin to think of them as creative and improvisational social elements.

What do you want? It can be anything.

So Marx says at this point, look, we don't live forever. We don't really gain for having our senses pandered to. We gain because we gain in the esteem of others - basically because we are good to each other. Where self comes in, it's like - our special nature is contributing. We are important. We are artists. This is what fulfills us. To have a family we love, to have friends we trust. Good times follow these things. Not money. Certainly not money gained by robbery or lies.

Marx was a shit-ton smarter that the vast majority of the human race, but people come to these same conclusions all the time. It's intuitively understood. We know bad from good, and all that gets in the way is this constant rationalizing about MONEY. Money is how we excuse being asses to each other. And for all our efforts it doesn't work. It doesn't make it ok. Competition has its limit because we are defined by what we do to each other, and we LIVE in that definition.

So, to the topic. If you think profit is the only motive, it's natural to say so, and unnatural to think so, because it's what we are taught, and it's what we can NEVER LIVE. To live that is to become a villain. To become a villain is to make oneself incapable of feeling, of loving, of hope, of trust, of excellence, of grace... To die wretched.

When communists talk about the means of production they mean control of their destiny. When given control of their destiny people are not the wicked boogeymen of capitalist lore. By this theory, they want nothing more than to be good and productive. Nihilistic individualism is the PRODUCT of capitalism, and this is what capitalists blame. But this is not really a communist/capitalist question. I've studied comparative religion, world history and art, it's all saying the same thing. Drop a couple bucks and go to a movie, if it's worth anything it's saying the same thing.

Being good is not about winning at the expense of others.

The non-profit motive rules the world. That's why capitalism has to use force and lies.

[Cartertonian]

@ thread.

ignore kman's comments.

In fairness to Kman, we troll the Libertarian forum pretty hard and routinely, grossly and unreasonably misrepresent the motivations of Libertarians. He's just trolling us back!

The reason we are like this is that we've developed to cooperate. We share a consciousness. I cannot emphasize this strongly enough. The implications are so enormous it has been the source of religions, religious wars, revolutions, on-going animosity, you name it, much blood and rage. If we accept this idea - even remotely, even experimentally, it suggests that no matter what we do individually THE REALITY WE EXPERIENCE is essentially shared, essentially not ours individually, but part of a narrative. We are nothing without each other, and with each other we are what we do to each other.

This, to me, sums up the true epicentre of the tempestuous debate. Are we 6 billion 'individuals'...or are we 'the Human Race'?

[The Clockwork Rat]

Cole, C_M and Suska all made good points.

To expand on Cole's one of the issues that we on the left have is the aversion to symbols, signs, etc. We aspire to a materialist society, but have a general distrust of using symbols to redirect people's ideology. Off-topic comment, but I think this is Fascism's main strength, and we should take control of it.

[Cartertonian]

Cole, C_M and Suska all made good points.

Translation:

Cartertonian's talking bollocks again!

[The Clockwork Rat]

Not really, you just didn't actually add much. I also think the question you highlighted is highly important, but most of us know which side of the line we're on.

[Cartertonian]

I was just taking the pish...er, sorry, piss! It'sh Boxshing Day and I've 'ad a few!

Hope you had a good Christmas.

[Preston Cole]

To expand on Cole's one of the issues that we on the left have is the aversion to symbols, signs, etc. We aspire to a materialist society, but have a general distrust of using symbols to redirect people's ideology. Off-topic comment, but I think this is Fascism's main strength, and we should take control of it.

Impossible. Renounce your materialist worldview and nationalize your socialist movement. It's the only way you can bring your economic centralist views to be represented in your country: through overt concern for the welfare of the nation, not just the select groups (women, immigrants, minorities) your ideology currently defends. Change your vision of "justice" from "justice for the oppressed" to "justice for the whole Fatherland."

[Aesthetic]

Being good is not about winning at the expense of others.
The non-profit motive rules the world. That's why capitalism has to use force and lies.

The non-profit motive, then, is the recognition of human interaction and our dependence on inter-personal relationships, correct? I am reading you as: There is no such thing as "self-interest," there is only "human interest." Is this so?

In fairness to Kman, we troll the Libertarian forum pretty hard and routinely, grossly and unreasonably misrepresent the motivations of Libertarians. He's just trolling us back!

So true.

Change your vision of "justice" from "justice for the oppressed" to "justice for the whole Fatherland."

In terms of the OP, this would be a motive more based on state-consciousness, correct? Money is not the goal, it is the strength of the state?

[Suska]

There is no such thing as "self-interest," there is only "human interest." Is this so?

Well, not exactly. Interest isn't consciousness, also self-interest is more like a competition within a social context, that is; self-interest is served by service of human interest, the alternative implication given by bourgeois individualism depends on defining people as mere carnal objects - which plainly isn't true. So plainly not true one wonders if there isn't hate behind the suggestion. But in all I would use much stronger language; there is no self without others, there is no interest without cooperation, we are only conscious of ourselves by connection to others and we are conscious of ourselves in exactly the way we are connected to others. It's not a higher thing to aspire to if possible, it's the only thing and even proponents of the alternative don't practice their ideology entirely, and wherever they do even partially they become dissolute in as much as they do. It's a killing thing to be excluded, meanwhile a more deterministic viewpoint suggests that we are first of all excluded and have to work at inclusion, which is like saying in a very blanket way, you should die if you don't do what we want you to do.

[Donna]

Libertarianism is the fascism of postindustrial capitalism, the presence of an ideology that appeals to the working class yet only benefits the elite. I sometimes wonder if they must seize power and fuck up horribly in order for history to properly digest them, as appears to have happened with neoconservatives.

What makes communism the most relevant vision of the 21st century is that the basis of its supposed expiration in 1991 is being revealed as a lie (communism only recovers from this point on) and the liberal capitalist vision has possibly exhausted its life expectancy with the rise of a more safe and illiberal capitalism in Asia.

Impossible. Renounce your materialist worldview and nationalize your socialist movement. It's the only way you can bring your economic centralist views to be represented in your country: through overt concern for the welfare of the nation, not just the select groups (women, immigrants, minorities) your ideology currently defends. Change your vision of "justice" from "justice for the oppressed" to "justice for the whole Fatherland."

It is more likely that these views and opposing views, in open, would keep Western civil society alive during a transition to a communistic mode of production.

[Preston Cole]

It is more likely that these views and opposing views, in open, would keep Western civil society alive during a transition to a communistic mode of production.

So you admit the national sentiment is central to the growth of even a communist movement? Unfortunately, there are too many anti-conservative elements in Marxism that will inevitably lead to the destruction of the bourgeoisie, and with it, an important part of the nation. I will accept the notion that egalitarianism and Marxism were, and could be, applied to a National-Communist setting the way past Stalinist states have, but it's more a matter of historical compromise for me rather than any kind of support for any communist movement.

There are some fascists who support communist movements as long as they don't grow fond of internationalist propaganda: NazBols, National Futurists, Strasserists. But they have a different approach on the role of the middle-class and seek to minimize, perhaps even scrap completely, its interference in nationalism.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Impossible. Renounce your materialist worldview and nationalize your socialist movement. It's the only way you can bring your economic centralist views to be represented in your country: through overt concern for the welfare of the nation, not just the select groups (women, immigrants, minorities) your ideology currently defends. Change your vision of "justice" from "justice for the oppressed" to "justice for the whole Fatherland."

Lol. You completely misunderstand the motivations behind socialism and communism. Identity politics are a way of furthering socialism, and are only useful as far as they do so, they are certainly not the driving part of materialism. The point is not to underline those "differences", but to develop the means of production past the point that they are "differences". To me, a person is a person, they only become an enemy when they get in the way of the revolution, and only become a friend if they support it. I doubt that the character of the revolution would resemble outsider personalities, that would cause a swift reaction against it. There would need to be a universal aspect to it, of course, but focusing on one thing any more than it is useful is counterproductive. What you want is fascism, and that is not a part of Marxist socialism nor will it ever be. It's not about justice for the oppressed, it's about justice against the oppressors.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Cole, you say "economic centralist views", but how can I have those if I am not in favour of centralisation, or capitalist distributive economics?

[Preston Cole]

Identity politics are a way of furthering socialism, and are only useful as far as they do so, they are certainly not the driving part of materialism. The point is not to underline those "differences", but to develop the means of production past the point that they are "differences". To me, a person is a person, they only become an enemy when they get in the way of the revolution, and only become a friend if they support it.

This is where our ideologies differ, in that these differences display the cultural aspect of humans beyond what you see as the development of the means of production. Fascism relies more on emotion and less on material explanations or rationalism, as emotions are the driving force behind human actions and material accomplishments are a result thereof. Patriotism sparks sentiments of unity and security and provides a much nobler incentive to modernize the country economically and provide for its citizens.

Cole, you say "economic centralist views", but how can I have those if I am not in favour of centralisation, or capitalist distributive economics?

Perhaps I should have said "economically interventionist views," but that encompasses everything from social conservatism to Stalinism. Aren't you a state socialist? I don't know much about the various branches of socialism, just the basics.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

This is where our ideologies differ, in that these differences display the cultural aspect of humans beyond what you see as the development of the means of production. Fascism relies more on emotion and less on material explanations or rationalism, as emotions are the driving force behind human actions and material accomplishments are a result thereof.

"Driving force" is the same thing as "motivation", correct? Then I don't see why you can't acknowledge the effect of emotions and simultaneously realize that emotions are useful only if they are accompanied with action. The point is, you can manipulate emotion as long as you are not the one feeling it and being misled by it. If you realize that emotions are not apposed to rational, and in fact can influence it, then you realize that fascism is not actually based on some kind intrinsic value (what people feel), but actually just based on a mythology, one that can run awry and be twisted against you.