Philosophy Discussion Forums

. One of the most fundamental psychological things has to be understood: equality is an illusion. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Lenin, and other communist thinkers of the world have created almost a conviction in millions of people’s minds—not only those who are communist but also those who are not communist—that equality should be the goal. Only machines can be equal; man cannot be. If you want man to be equal, then you will have to destroy his humanity and make him a robot.

. It is very simple: just as two faces are not the same, in the whole world even two fingerprints are not the same—and you want two beings to be the same? You don’t value the being more than the fingerprint even? A very absurd idea of equality has become widespread.

. Why it became so influential can be understood very easily. Everybody feels inferior to somebody, either intellectually, financially, or physically. In some way everybody carries deep down an inferiority complex, because he is continuously comparing himself with others. Naturally, somebody has more intelligence, somebody has more physical strength, somebody can run faster than you, somebody can swim better. It is impossible for anybody not to feel inferior if he starts comparing.

. Even the people who have immense power in some way or other feel inferior when they start comparing. That leaves almost the whole of humanity feeling an inferiority complex.

. Even a man like Napoleon was very touchy at one point. His height was only five feet, five inches—even his bodyguards were taller—and that hurt.

. One day he was trying to fix a picture on his wall, and the nail was a little high up, beyond his hand’s reach. His bodyguard said, “Sir, I can do it. I am higher than you.” Napoleon became so angry. He said, “You are taller than me but not higher than me.”

. Even the people who have immense power in some way or other feel inferior when they start comparing. That leaves almost the whole of humanity feeling an inferiority complex. And this is the root cause why communism is so influential. It has nothing to do with economics, nothing to do with capitalism. It simply fulfils a deep desire in every man that everybody be equal. He feels gratified even to think that everybody is equal. Then there will be no wound, no hurt feeling, there will be no question of comparison.

. Nobody has looked at communism from a psychological viewpoint. People have been studying communism only as an economic theory. It is not. Basically, it is a psychological consolation to all those who are feeling inferior in any way. Hence, more than half of humanity is already communist.

Anand_Haqq wrote: ↑June 12th, 2021, 9:34 pm One of the most fundamental psychological things has to be understood: equality is an illusion. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Lenin, and other communist thinkers of the world have created almost a conviction in millions of people’s minds—not only those who are communist but also those who are not communist—that equality should be the goal.

I wonder where did you get such an idea of Marx, Engels and Lenin peddling egalitarism.

Allen Woods on Karl Marx and equality:

Marx thinks the idea of equality is actually a vehicle for bourgeois class oppression, and something quite different from the communist goal of the abolition of classes. [...] A society that has transcended class antagonisms, therefore, would not be one in which some truly universal interest at last reigns, to which individual interests must be sacrificed. It would instead be a society in which individuals freely act as the truly human individuals they are. Marx's radical communism was, in this way, also radically individualistic.

Anand_Haqq wrote: ↑June 12th, 2021, 9:34 pmNobody has looked at communism from a psychological viewpoint. People have been studying communism only as an economic theory. It is not. Basically, it is a psychological consolation to all those who are feeling inferior in any way. Hence, more than half of humanity is already communist.

Again, are you sure about that? What do you make of Erich Fromm?

Newme wrote: ↑June 12th, 2021, 7:19 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 12th, 2021, 11:42 am

Newme wrote: ↑June 11th, 2021, 10:35 pm In North Carolina, China got caught shipping US body parts to add to their massive human organ-selling industry. They also use organs of prisoners from concentration “re-education” camps.

I DuckDuckGo'd the sentence "In North Carolina, China got caught shipping US body parts to add to their massive human organ-selling industry", and found ... nothing at all about body parts. You know Fox News is an Entertainment channel, yes?

Why jump to conclusions & engage in appeal to authority - just to see if you could do both simultaneously?

I was mistaken in that it was SOUTH, not North, Carolina...

“A Hong Kong-flagged cargo ship departed South Carolina in July carrying 6,000 pounds of human remains valued at $67,204”
https://www.westernjournal.com/shipping ... argo-ship/

OK, but I can hardly be blamed for being unable to find a news item when you didn't describe it well enough to be found. A brief examination of the new link you offer, and the Reuters report that spawned it, shows what we all might expect. American Capitalistic greed trampling traditional values, and exporting parts of dead Americans for profit.

Reuters wrote:The body parts came from a Portland business called MedCure Inc. A so-called body broker, MedCure profits by dissecting the bodies of altruistic donors and sending the parts to medical training and research companies.

So the situation you referred to doesn't seem to be what you claimed it was. This is not the evil Chinese stealing the dead bodies of Americans. It's the willing and eager participation of an American company in a rather distasteful global money-making operation that seems to include many nations, including the USA and China:

Reuters wrote:Since 2008, Reuters found, U.S. body brokers have exported parts to at least 45 countries, including Italy, Israel, Mexico, China, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. Whole bodies are studied at Caribbean-based medical schools. Plastic surgeons in Germany use heads from dead Americans to practice new techniques. Thousands of parts are shipped overseas annually; a precise number cannot be calculated because no agency tracks industry exports.

So this sensational anti-Chinese propaganda story turns out to show the Americans and the Chinese both involved in making money in a rather unpleasant manner. And many other countries are involved too, it seems. So your comment that "China got caught shipping US body parts to add to their massive human organ-selling industry" is untrue, yes? China is far from perfect - very far - but the USA (and my own UK) are as guilty in different, but equally unpleasant, ways.

The current wave of American-sourced anti-Chinese propaganda worries me. For as the American Empire fades, it is probably China who will be the next global Imperial Power. American animosity toward them won't help anyone, I don't think.

Same as went wrong with democracy and christianity: one person has a pretty good idea; five other people run off with it in five different directions; five different thousands of people get it wrong but try to make some version of it work and then one person out of each faction takes over, turns it into something else entirely, kills the few who believe in the original concept and oppresses all the rest - usually with their consent.

Alias wrote: ↑June 13th, 2021, 11:07 pm Same as went wrong with democracy and christianity: one person has a pretty good idea; five other people run off with it in five different directions; five different thousands of people get it wrong but try to make some version of it work and then one person out of each faction takes over, turns it into something else entirely, kills the few who believe in the original concept and oppresses all the rest - usually with their consent.

All organisations shrug off their individualistic origins and become entirely self-serving.

Consider the difference between a colony and an organism. There reaches a point of integration where only the whole seems to matter and the parts are disposable. Martyrs to a greater cause.

I think the same basic dynamics are at play with the organisations you mentioned. Really, if you want a religion, company or political system to not be corrupted, it needs to remain local. Trouble is, in time, small local concerns will be ever more gobbled up by regional, state, national and international entities.

So it looks like societies are increasingly bifurcating into individuals and monoliths, without much in between. Hope I'm wrong.

Communism was invented to address inequality.
Where communism was tried it had to resists massive inequalities of power.
The only places where that power was broken was through revolution.
Revolution is chaotic and creates new power bases, which are antithetical to communism. But in order to progress the revolution, those power relationships had to persist. So ,in effect communism was never tried, and where there was "successful" revolution there was a new heirachy of power. This led to some improvements in life in Russia for ordinary people, who moved from slavery to jobs. A minor improvement.

In the rare instances where it worked it was through beneficent dictatorships, but since tyrrany is also antithetical to communism this was no solution.

A more equitable and fair system is still the desire of ordinary people and they are still pressing for a better life, though inequalities of power in the media and government establishments prevent change.
The last chance for a real change was social media. Sadly the powerful are using that as a tool of manipulation and the future looks bleak with ever greater controls on freedom.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 16th, 2021, 7:05 am Communism was invented to address inequality.
Where communism was tried it had to resists massive inequalities of power.
The only places where that power was broken was through revolution.
Revolution is chaotic and creates new power bases, which are antithetical to communism. But in order to progress the revolution, those power relationships had to persist. So ,in effect communism was never tried, and where there was "successful" revolution there was a new heirachy of power. This led to some improvements in life in Russia for ordinary people, who moved from slavery to jobs. A minor improvement.

In the rare instances where it worked it was through beneficent dictatorships, but since tyrrany is also antithetical to communism this was no solution.

A more equitable and fair system is still the desire of ordinary people and they are still pressing for a better life, though inequalities of power in the media and government establishments prevent change.
The last chance for a real change was social media. Sadly the powerful are using that as a tool of manipulation and the future looks bleak with ever greater controls on freedom.

Bingo. Communism is either a small group experience or a national theory only as it has never existed on a national scale.

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 1:17 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 16th, 2021, 7:05 am Communism was invented to address inequality.
Where communism was tried it had to resists massive inequalities of power.
The only places where that power was broken was through revolution.
Revolution is chaotic and creates new power bases, which are antithetical to communism. But in order to progress the revolution, those power relationships had to persist. So ,in effect communism was never tried, and where there was "successful" revolution there was a new heirachy of power. This led to some improvements in life in Russia for ordinary people, who moved from slavery to jobs. A minor improvement.

In the rare instances where it worked it was through beneficent dictatorships, but since tyrrany is also antithetical to communism this was no solution.

A more equitable and fair system is still the desire of ordinary people and they are still pressing for a better life, though inequalities of power in the media and government establishments prevent change.
The last chance for a real change was social media. Sadly the powerful are using that as a tool of manipulation and the future looks bleak with ever greater controls on freedom.

Bingo. Communism is either a small group experience or a national theory only as it has never existed on a national scale.

I think it could exist on a national scale, but only so long as the power of the centre is significantly curtailed. It's job would be to sanction non-collective businesses, and provide infrastructre employing collectivised businesses in which all workers were stake-holders.
Small businesses could still thrive until they reached a ctritical size at which time they would have to share the benefits rather then continue to exploit workers for their personal ends.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 4:50 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 1:17 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 16th, 2021, 7:05 am Communism was invented to address inequality.
Where communism was tried it had to resists massive inequalities of power.
The only places where that power was broken was through revolution.
Revolution is chaotic and creates new power bases, which are antithetical to communism. But in order to progress the revolution, those power relationships had to persist. So ,in effect communism was never tried, and where there was "successful" revolution there was a new heirachy of power. This led to some improvements in life in Russia for ordinary people, who moved from slavery to jobs. A minor improvement.

In the rare instances where it worked it was through beneficent dictatorships, but since tyrrany is also antithetical to communism this was no solution.

A more equitable and fair system is still the desire of ordinary people and they are still pressing for a better life, though inequalities of power in the media and government establishments prevent change.
The last chance for a real change was social media. Sadly the powerful are using that as a tool of manipulation and the future looks bleak with ever greater controls on freedom.

Bingo. Communism is either a small group experience or a national theory only as it has never existed on a national scale.

I think it could exist on a national scale, but only so long as the power of the centre is significantly curtailed. It's job would be to sanction non-collective businesses, and provide infrastructre employing collectivised businesses in which all workers were stake-holders.
Small businesses could still thrive until they reached a ctritical size at which time they would have to share the benefits rather then continue to exploit workers for their personal ends.

It could happen, but would be at the mercy of idealistic and committed leadership (a low probability event).

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 1:07 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 4:50 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 1:17 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 16th, 2021, 7:05 am Communism was invented to address inequality.
Where communism was tried it had to resists massive inequalities of power.
The only places where that power was broken was through revolution.
Revolution is chaotic and creates new power bases, which are antithetical to communism. But in order to progress the revolution, those power relationships had to persist. So ,in effect communism was never tried, and where there was "successful" revolution there was a new heirachy of power. This led to some improvements in life in Russia for ordinary people, who moved from slavery to jobs. A minor improvement.

In the rare instances where it worked it was through beneficent dictatorships, but since tyrrany is also antithetical to communism this was no solution.

A more equitable and fair system is still the desire of ordinary people and they are still pressing for a better life, though inequalities of power in the media and government establishments prevent change.
The last chance for a real change was social media. Sadly the powerful are using that as a tool of manipulation and the future looks bleak with ever greater controls on freedom.

Bingo. Communism is either a small group experience or a national theory only as it has never existed on a national scale.

I think it could exist on a national scale, but only so long as the power of the centre is significantly curtailed. It's job would be to sanction non-collective businesses, and provide infrastructre employing collectivised businesses in which all workers were stake-holders.
Small businesses could still thrive until they reached a ctritical size at which time they would have to share the benefits rather then continue to exploit workers for their personal ends.

It could happen, but would be at the mercy of idealistic and committed leadership (a low probability event).

Not sure about the phrase "at the mercy of", We are certainly at the mercy of A hadnful of media moguls who are not accountable to any political system. Leaders that seem to be in control, accountable to an electorate are definitley at the mercy of these men.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 5:02 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 1:07 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 4:50 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 1:17 am

Bingo. Communism is either a small group experience or a national theory only as it has never existed on a national scale.

I think it could exist on a national scale, but only so long as the power of the centre is significantly curtailed. It's job would be to sanction non-collective businesses, and provide infrastructre employing collectivised businesses in which all workers were stake-holders.
Small businesses could still thrive until they reached a ctritical size at which time they would have to share the benefits rather then continue to exploit workers for their personal ends.

It could happen, but would be at the mercy of idealistic and committed leadership (a low probability event).

Not sure about the phrase "at the mercy of", We are certainly at the mercy of A hadnful of media moguls who are not accountable to any political system. Leaders that seem to be in control, accountable to an electorate are definitley at the mercy of these men.

While you are correct that we are at the mercy of good leadership in any system, systems that go against natural tendancies are more dependant on rules to operate correctly. Competition and thus market forces go along with natural human psychology, cooperation and sharing don't.

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 18th, 2021, 1:39 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 5:02 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 1:07 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 4:50 am

I think it could exist on a national scale, but only so long as the power of the centre is significantly curtailed. It's job would be to sanction non-collective businesses, and provide infrastructre employing collectivised businesses in which all workers were stake-holders.
Small businesses could still thrive until they reached a ctritical size at which time they would have to share the benefits rather then continue to exploit workers for their personal ends.

It could happen, but would be at the mercy of idealistic and committed leadership (a low probability event).

Not sure about the phrase "at the mercy of", We are certainly at the mercy of A hadnful of media moguls who are not accountable to any political system. Leaders that seem to be in control, accountable to an electorate are definitley at the mercy of these men.

While you are correct that we are at the mercy of good leadership in any system, systems that go against natural tendancies are more dependant on rules to operate correctly. Competition and thus market forces go along with natural human psychology, cooperation and sharing don't.

Don't let them tell you that is is simply wrong.
Such is the myth of capitalism run by psychopaths for their own engrandisement.
Co-operation and sharing are not only key components of human psychology, but they are far more common and widespread, than conflict. Without cooperation and sharing we would still be hitting each other over the heads with tapir jawbones and be stuck on the savanna.
How do you think humans managed to live and evolve in Africa with the world's most vicious predators to colonise the entire world without cooperation and sharing?

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 1:17 am Communism is either a small group experience or a national theory only as it has never existed on a national scale.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 4:50 am I think it could exist on a national scale, but only so long as the power of the centre is significantly curtailed.

I'm not sure that works right. The "power of the centre" is the power of the community, yes? The community will always overrule the individual, by sheer force of numbers. I think the trick is that the community promotes and nurtures the individual, anywhere and everywhere that this doesn't conflict with the aims and needs of the community. It's a delicate balancing act, and the downside is obvious: the community can dominate individuals unnecessarily, as people (within the community hierarchy) try to wield more influence than perhaps they are due.... Humans!

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 18th, 2021, 6:56 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 1:17 am Communism is either a small group experience or a national theory only as it has never existed on a national scale.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 4:50 am I think it could exist on a national scale, but only so long as the power of the centre is significantly curtailed.

I'm not sure that works right. The "power of the centre" is the power of the community, yes? The community will always overrule the individual, by sheer force of numbers. I think the trick is that the community promotes and nurtures the individual, anywhere and everywhere that this doesn't conflict with the aims and needs of the community. It's a delicate balancing act, and the downside is obvious: the community can dominate individuals unnecessarily, as people (within the community hierarchy) try to wield more influence than perhaps they are due.... Humans!

WHen is the centre not the people? When it is the community? When is the community not the power? When it is the centre. .
If the power resided in the people it would not be the centre. I suppose it depends on what the centre is. When that is an individual, it is that individual that overrules, and rules over. Kings and other establishments design technologies and ideaologies of power. But what is a king but a person? A person with added ********, the accoutrementa of power and tradition - all false ideology.
The job of the centre cannot be to dominate and rule but to preside.
This is at the hard edge of exacly what went wrong with communism. When an heirarchy is overthrown it takes masses of pwer and military strength. The old system must be purged. Establishements are so entranched that it about belief - the unthnking acceptance that the Csar was the divine head of the state- he was the state. After such violence needed to change all that kind words and good intentions are trampled on by the unscrupulous. Stalin, was such a person.

It might be worth mentioning here that despite the tribulations suffered by Loas, Cambodia and Vietnam they have communists systems which are working.
I hear you mention N Korea.. Indeed Kim has a godlike power completely antthetical to communist principles, with a populace indoctrinated to worship. You can hardly tel the difference between Kim idolatry and Trump idolatry.
I suppose until the human race grows up a bit more the tendancy to self abasement will contimue to allow this stupidity.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 18th, 2021, 6:20 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 18th, 2021, 1:39 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 5:02 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 17th, 2021, 1:07 pm

It could happen, but would be at the mercy of idealistic and committed leadership (a low probability event).

Not sure about the phrase "at the mercy of", We are certainly at the mercy of A hadnful of media moguls who are not accountable to any political system. Leaders that seem to be in control, accountable to an electorate are definitley at the mercy of these men.

While you are correct that we are at the mercy of good leadership in any system, systems that go against natural tendancies are more dependant on rules to operate correctly. Competition and thus market forces go along with natural human psychology, cooperation and sharing don't.

Don't let them tell you that is is simply wrong.
Such is the myth of capitalism run by psychopaths for their own engrandisement.
Co-operation and sharing are not only key components of human psychology, but they are far more common and widespread, than conflict. Without cooperation and sharing we would still be hitting each other over the heads with tapir jawbones and be stuck on the savanna.
How do you think humans managed to live and evolve in Africa with the world's most vicious predators to colonise the entire world without cooperation and sharing?

Humans (and even chimpanzees) have fairness as a key part of their psychological worldview. Thus why individuals can accept getting less stuff if they work less. OTOH we don't deal with working more than everyone and receiving the average very well. In fact, such a system rewards doing as little work as possible.