fahsion and communism
- Thread starter 118118
- Start date
yeah i think so. communism means that everyone has to work the same and contribute as much labor as they can, doesn't require everyone to dress the same way. although i don't think gucci and vuitton will be around...
I don't qute mean will everyone dress the same. i mean will there be zeitgeists, will somepone get into say, 14th century proto metal, and suddenly that get's weirdly popular fopr no real reason that people are getting excited about something that they used to not be intersted in. Doesn't that pass over power to the things that we create. Doesn't that mean that social relatipons will begin to be embodied in e.g. the cut of trouser - or something.
i am a bit sceptical of claims like "X does not exist". well, in this instance. amrxism is not supposed to be some blueprint for a better society. it's just the marxist labour movement, which you could say "doesn't exist anymore". but to say that it never existed, well it's no more reasonable to say that someone with the screen name 118118 never posted on urban. i can't be bothered to articulate this any better. sorry.
118118 said:
Well, how about posting up some examples of when or where communism existed beyond the theory books.
The human world has never seen communism in practice. If it had, you'd be able to provide examples mate.
So i really don't think skepticism has anything to do with it.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
fela fan said:
how so?
erm, i mean you're thinking about it all wrong. as in yeah sure communism that exists in book, thats not real etc.fela fan said:
but that's not what communism is. communism is whichever movement you think is going to create a classless society. of course one could argue that it is logically impossible for any tendency ever to have the chance of creating a classless society. but i don't find that very convincing.
apart from that, it's just of question of which lot you want to throw your lot in with. could be anyone really.
118118 said:
But there ain't never gonna be a classless society. It might belong to the 'should' of life, but it is never going to be the 'is' of life.
Why do you not find convincing logical impossibility as equalling a classless society? It seems bloody good evidence to me!
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
fela, you've yet to demonstrate how something that you claim has never existed cannot exist.
unless i'm much wrong, there is nothing in the communist manifesto which breaks the rules of physics.
i guess we could theoretically go through a list of all human communities and states that have ever existed and see if there is a correllation between ones that call themselves communist, ones that don't but ahve attributes that others may call communist, and ones where the laws of physics are circumnavigated, and see what the venn diagram looks like for that.
unless i'm much wrong, there is nothing in the communist manifesto which breaks the rules of physics.
i guess we could theoretically go through a list of all human communities and states that have ever existed and see if there is a correllation between ones that call themselves communist, ones that don't but ahve attributes that others may call communist, and ones where the laws of physics are circumnavigated, and see what the venn diagram looks like for that.
bluestreak said:
No, true mate. But the rules of physics are not the rules that govern human behaviour.
Before i go any further, do you really think that communism is practically possible? That it could even begin to be put in place? Surely not.
And of course communism exists, we need to put that right, but it has only ever existed in theory, in the books. Never in practice.
Ironically i feel the country that is most suited to it all is britain, but even there it ain't gonna happen.
A logical impossibility is something that is it follows that it is impossible by the laws of logic alone (it's stonger than nomic necessity iirc). So you would have to offer assumptions from which it can be deduced that classless society is impossible. It's tantamount to asking someone to prove god!
118118 said:cos thinngs change. classless society = joint ownership of property democratically (- of whichever definition) run?
why is that an impossible possibility (if that's not the wrong term) abstracted from human nature and current conditions?
You show me a society without leadership, and i may accept that communism is possible. But you can't.
Incidentally, i quite like the idea of a classless society, or at least one where the people reject crimes by leaders. But we're not ready for this yet.
It is the future though, but only when we realise there are only two classes: people and leaders.
118118 said:
Not having a go, but if you edit this i may better understand what you're trying to tell me. And i don't know what 'nomic' means either!
But by putting forward your example, then i can only say, there is no God, there's never been any proof of 'him', and equally there is no communism. Both have been theorised over many years, and both have yet to get past pages in books. They are both non-starters, and i have a feeling you can agree to this.
'nomic' iirc means follows 100% likely from natural laws (physics, whatever).
i agree that there is no god. that is epistemically necessary (i think i've used this term correctly. if anyone can correct me do).
but that's not to say that it's logically impossible. that it can be deduced rather than induced.
i agree that there is no god. that is epistemically necessary (i think i've used this term correctly. if anyone can correct me do).
but that's not to say that it's logically impossible. that it can be deduced rather than induced.
118118 said:good point mate
tbh, i don't know much about that. i'm just trying to study philosophy.
At every turn in your life, never forget that philosophy never ever obtained the answers mate. Still nobody can agree. It's a great thing to study, but there are much higher things in life than philosophy, that i feel can only become available after sustained efforts in grasping the fruits of philosophy. For that is all that is worth getting out of philosophy, the fruits of it.
Here's a philosophical comment for you, and it's all mine! The mind is only an interpreter of existence. And since humans are part of existence, it stands to reason, and logical certainty (!), that the human and their mind are not one and the same. So those that identify with their mind as being their person, are misguided. There is a whole new 'world' beyond the mind...
... it's existence. And philosophy, like it or not, will never get a handle on it.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
fela fan said:
ah, just checking, cos there is a massive world of difference between possible and practical.
the problem as i see it is that even if you were to get an isolated state that was run by decent people along communist lines there would be too much interference from the non-communist states of the world that would ensure that the communist state would fail. and that's without getting into cults of personaility and the replacement of the old hierarchys with new ones.
118118 said:
I still say communism is impossible, by any and every yardstick, save for human theorising.
You ain't never gonna find it in the human world, in the animal world, nor in the world of nature. It is impossible in every practical way. Existence just does not work this way. And that is the final arbiter, in every count.
bluestreak said:
Ah, the world of possibilities fascinates me, and your example highlights some of the problems. For in reality, the world of possibilities contains some that are actually real, but when we look at the world as a whole, it is impossible. I hope that makes sense.
For example, the ultimate objective for humans (in my opinion) is to achieve a state of life without war. Now, x amount of people have never committed violence, and therefore it is certain that war can be avoided, coz x amount of people have spent their lives in peace, not war.
But humanity as a whole has yet to manage this state of living. Within the currently impossible lies the possible!
But communism is actually not even desirable, and therefore will never ever exist beyond the books. For something to exist meaningfully, it surely requires motivational force for it to manifest itself...
Similar threads
