alternative way of reaching communism

[danyboy27]

I always considered communism has a good thing, and on that issue i think even tomk would agree.

the whole problem about communism is finding a way of reaching it.
there is many opinions on how we should working this out; trought violent protest, trought political protest , political party, by educating peoples etc.

i have been talking to people for some times, and 99% of the time, they dont think communism is a bad idea, on the contrary, its a good one, something that would bring efficiency and equality.

but seriously, even if i can reassure people about this issue, that communism dosnt mean the destruction of the modern way of life (tv, good healthcare etc) but in fact its a way of making it more better, wtf me and my buddies are supposed to do?

-vote for a marxist leninist party who got 0.2% of the intentions per year?

-get involved into massive working place action and threaten the only salary of a father of 2 kids?

-putting ourselves into a dumpster diver lifestylism?

i have been looking for the appropriate thing to do and incitate other to do in order to bring down the system but nothing that make sense come up at all.

i know that i am not the only one in that position, and i have been talking to some people, and so far, we came up with nothing, nothing efficient, not even in a long shot. informing is all fun, but its pretty useless if at the end there is nothing the people i inform can do to change things.

lets call this thread a brainstorming one, shoot your stuff, and perhaps i will come up with something.

Tomk, its verry important to have your participation :D

[Robert]

in order to bring down the system

Spet, you're one of my favorite people, but you know I can't help. Happy hunting.

[trivas7]

Personally, IMO the recommendations of the Communist manifesto are as valid today as they were when they were first proposed over a hundred years ago. I.e.


1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Unfortunately, there is no royal road to Mecca (or was that Jerusalem?), spetnaz21. Remember that Marxism doesn't offer clear, easy answers, but is instead concerned w/ nuance and the flux of everything that impinges upon society. It also has huge aims: to explain the entirety of social relations and to give people the knowledge they need to improve their material conditions. As such it is good to think of the transition to socialism in terms of centuries, not generations.

Brendan Cooney answers the following question here (http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/in-defence-of-teleology/):

“What recent event or political process that you have participated in, witnessed or studied has given you inspiration and confidence that ‘a better world is possible’ and why do you think the fight for a better world will succeed?”

[Lynx]

Technological advancement seems to be the likeliest way of reaching communism. The system will not change until it is bloody obvious that an alternative is possible.

[RGacky3]

trought violent protest, trought political protest , political party, by educating peoples

They all go hand in hand sometimes, although I don't agree with the political party, and your missing out something thats key, direct worker action, organization, and self-governance.


but seriously, even if i can reassure people about this issue, that communism dosnt mean the destruction of the modern way of life (tv, good healthcare etc) but in fact its a way of making it more better, wtf me and my buddies are supposed to do?

First the question needs to be asked, How in hell would communism mean the destruction of the modern way of life?

Thats such a rediculous question, its like asking what the effect communism would have on the blueness of the sky.


-vote for a marxist leninist party who got 0.2% of the intentions per year?

-get involved into massive working place action and threaten the only salary of a father of 2 kids?

-putting ourselves into a dumpster diver lifestylism?

If those are the only options you see, then I don't know, join an internet forum.

I'd say the second, join a radical union, and start slowly organizing, or support others that organize.

Joining a radical Union is probably the best thing you could do in a western country as a working class person.

[Havet]

Originally Posted by Communist Manifesto
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.Oh the irony. You wish to solve the "apparent" problem of monopoly in capitalism by creating an even bigger monopoly.

And how much more nationalist can you get when you steal people who wish to leave? haha I love OI

[OneNamedNameLess]

I am awaiting a nuclear holocaust. When the state and most of the world's population have been wiped out and the restoration of capitalism becomes difficult, we can work towards creating a communist society :)

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I am awaiting a nuclear holocaust. When the state and most of the world's population have been wiped out and the restoration of capitalism becomes difficult, we can work towards creating a communist society :)

and that is why your a plank.

[ckaihatsu]

Oh the irony. You wish to solve the "apparent" problem of monopoly in capitalism by creating an even bigger monopoly.


You're confusing a monopoly of capital (private ownership) with a monopoly of labor (dictatorship of the proletariat). These are two *very* different things, and are mutually exclusive -- they can't both exist at the same time.





And how much more nationalist can you get when you steal people who wish to leave? haha I love OI


And now you're throwing in some Stalinism.

Real communism, or the collective control of the means of mass production by labor, would mean that the *workers themselves* decide how they do things, and who should go where.


Chris







--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[OneNamedNameLess]

I think some of the known methods mentioned are still relevant. However, revolutionary movements and situations require the correct conditions in order to stir the masses. Poor economic conditions obviously trigger a greater degree of resistance due to dissatisfaction with the current system.

Perhaps smaller, gradual steps are more essential such as radicalizing unions, spreading class consciousness, reaching the working class through alternative media and so on. Once the ideology of the elites is questioned and the situation is ripe, the collapse of capitalism will not seem so distant.


and that is why your a plank.

You must brush up on your reading skills. Maybe then you will be able to identify when someone is being sarcastic because, yes, I greatly desire mass nuclear attacks :rolleyes:

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

You suck at online sarcasm and while on the internet I assume there are no limits to the shitness of ideas.

[OneNamedNameLess]

You suck at online sarcasm and while on the internet I assume there are no limits to the shitness of ideas.

What is that supposed to mean? I apologise for my inability to conduct efficient online sarcasm. Can you possibly provide a critique of my second post? Disagree all you like. Let's try to keep our personal feelings towards each other out of the boards. I feel like a fool for developing distaste towards people on the internet. Who knows, we could hit it off in real life :)

[Robert]

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Income tax? What will be coming in? It can't be money, since we won't have money.

Progressive? Some will have more income than others?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Green Socialist I pretty much agree wtih your second post. Log onto livechat so i can find someting to flame you over.

[Havet]

You're confusing a monopoly of capital (private ownership) with a monopoly of labor (dictatorship of the proletariat). These are two *very* different things, and are mutually exclusive -- they can't both exist at the same time.

It doesn't matter, it's an artificial monopoly (state created), which means you are willing to use force (dictatorship) on people when they haven't forced anyone at the point of a gun


And now you're throwing in some Stalinism.

Real communism, or the collective control of the means of mass production by labor, would mean that the *workers themselves* decide how they do things, and who should go where.

ive already showed you this argument, but ill put it again for those who havent seen it.

You propose to establish a social order based on the following tenets: that you are incompetent to run your own life, but competent to run the lives of others - that you're unfit to exist in freedom, but fit to become an omnipotent ruler- that you're unable to earn your living by the use of your own intelligence, but able to judge politicians and vote them into jobs of total power over arts you have never seen, over sciences you have never studied, over achievements of which you have no knowledge.

[Bud Struggle]

Income tax? What will be coming in? It can't be money, since we won't have money.

Progressive? Some will have more income than others?

It sucks when Capitalists have to remind Communists of what life will be like after the revolution. :D

[trivas7]

You propose to establish a social order based on the following tenets: that you are incompetent to run your own life, but competent to run the lives of others - that you're unfit to exist in freedom, but fit to become an omnipotent ruler- that you're unable to earn your living by the use of your own intelligence, but able to judge politicians and vote them into jobs of total power over arts you have never seen, over sciences you have never studied, over achievements of which you have no knowledge.
Um -- sounds like something palmed off w/ the help of Ayn Rand.

[danyboy27]

i didnt meant to say that communism mean the destruction of modern society, but you know, there is a lot of primitivist and failed socialist dictatorship to make people believe that communism would mean the end of modern civilisation.

i dont like unions to be serious, they are ton of them where i live, all more corrupt each year, union boss going to florida and eating 300 dollars dinner in vancation on the back of the worker is a common practice where i live. so far, i have been talking to a lot of union member, all of them are hating their job beccause of the union, beccause of the pressure they have from it. voting the opposite way for exemple for a strike or a protest could mean bad work relation and even sometimes weird accident, sometimes its not an accident at all.
people going to your house with baseball bat beccause you talked to the press about the union boss excess.

Union are greatly despised where i live beccause of that, for most people, all that shit isnt worth that pain, a lot of people would greatly prefers go work for the other buisness beccause it would mean not dealing with the union all the time.

[Havet]

Um -- sounds like something palmed off w/ the help of Ayn Rand.

Good guess. It's from "This is John Galt Speaking" chapter of Atlas Shrugged. Appropriate, don't you think?

[Lynx]

Good guess. It's from "This is John Galt Speaking" chapter of Atlas Shrugged. Appropriate, don't you think?
Inappropriate for a professed 'free thinker'.

[LeninBalls]

Income tax? What will be coming in? It can't be money, since we won't have money.

Progressive? Some will have more income than others?

It's clearly talking about socialism and not communism, dummy.

[Havet]

Inappropriate for a professed 'free thinker'.

"Freethought is a philosophical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science), logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), and reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason), and should not be influenced by authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority), tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition), or any other dogma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma). The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers."

Even though i do not agree with some ideas behind the book, concerning that issue, and that idea, i agree with it, based on my judgement which i try, to the best of my ability, to follow the standards of logic and reason. I'll be glad to hear a rebuttal to the part of the speech which i have quoted, if you think you can present more logic and reason than i already have, in order for my understanding of the subject to improve as well, in case I am wrong.

[Lynx]

"Freethought is a philosophical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science), logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), and reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason), and should not be influenced by authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority), tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition), or any other dogma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma). The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers."

Even though i do not agree with some ideas behind the book, concerning that issue, and that idea, i agree with it, based on my judgement which i try, to the best of my ability, to follow the standards of logic and reason. I'll be glad to hear a rebuttal to the part of the speech which i have quoted, if you think you can present more logic and reason than i already have, in order for my understanding of the subject to improve as well, in case I am wrong.
You posted that quote in another thread, and in response to a post by Chris in both threads. Am I supposed to guess what point you are trying to make, based on a quote taken out of context that you didn't write?

Direct democracy is based on the premise that ordinary people are capable of governing themselves. This means they are capable of sound decision-making on questions of policy and on other issues that may come up. Direct democracy is an alternative to politics and politicians. In the workplace, it is an alternative to the dictatorial status quo imposed by management and property ownership. It is not a substitute for technical expertise or work experience. Does this address your point?
Most flavors of communism involve direct democracy.

[Forward Union]

i have been looking for the appropriate thing to do and incitate other to do in order to bring down the system but nothing that make sense come up at all.

www.libertyandsolidarity.org.

Read the strategies.

[Havet]

You posted that quote in another thread, and in response to a post by Chris in both threads. Am I supposed to guess what point you are trying to make, based on a quote taken out of context that you didn't write?

I thought it was self-evident. I will proceed to explain.

What someone had said was: "Real communism, or the collective control of the means of mass production by labor, would mean that the *workers themselves* decide how they do things, and who should go where."

If i remmember correctly, one of the measures proposed by workers is that people should not be free (in society overall and in business) because some would end up exploiting others. Because people who believe this usually regard humans as people which have "intrinsicate desire of harming others and should have a daddy government", then is it not hypocritical that they propose that one is incompetent to run his own life, but competent to run the lives of others - that one is unfit to exist in freedom, but fit to become an omnipotent ruler ("workers themselves decide who should go where")?

They also claim that those who engage in profit motive without forcing others at gunpoint are bad. This is why they claim that one is unable to earn his living by the use of his own intelligence (provided he doesn't force others at gunpoint), but able to judge politicians and vote them into jobs of total power over arts one has never seen, over sciences one has never studied, over achievements of which one has no knowledge.


Direct democracy is based on the premise that ordinary people are capable of governing themselves. This means they are capable of sound decision-making on questions of policy and on other issues that may come up. Direct democracy is an alternative to politics and politicians. In the workplace, it is an alternative to the dictatorial status quo imposed by management and property ownership. It is not a substitute for technical expertise or work experience. Does this address your point?
Most flavors of communism involve direct democracy.it not only adress it but it also helps prove it. Most flavours of anarcism involve direct democracy. I have nothing against other people organizing themselves the way they see it is "fairer", better or other reason, provided they do not force others who do not share ther vision and not force others at gunpoint, AND provided those other institutions made by workers don't engage in force as well.

[Lynx]

I thought it was self-evident. I will proceed to explain.

What someone had said was: "Real communism, or the collective control of the means of mass production by labor, would mean that the *workers themselves* decide how they do things, and who should go where."

If i remmember correctly, one of the measures proposed by workers is that people should not be free (in society overall and in business) because some would end up exploiting others. Because people who believe this usually regard humans as people which have "intrinsicate desire of harming others and should have a daddy government", then is it not hypocritical that they propose that one is incompetent to run his own life, but competent to run the lives of others - that one is unfit to exist in freedom, but fit to become an omnipotent ruler ("workers themselves decide who should go where")?
Communism proposes that nobody be allowed to exploit others through profit, rent, or usury. These are economic mechanisms, based upon property law and laws defining the nature of money. A free market doesn't necessarily require exploitative types of income in order to function. Work income can suffice.
'Workers deciding how to do things, etc' is a democratic mechanism for decision-making. This says nothing about how well these decisions play out.

They also claim that those who engage in profit motive without forcing others at gunpoint are bad. This is why they claim that one is unable to earn his living by the use of his own intelligence (provided he doesn't force others at gunpoint), but able to judge politicians and vote them into jobs of total power over arts one has never seen, over sciences one has never studied, over achievements of which one has no knowledge.
People are free to use their talents, they just won't be rewarded monetarily through profit, rent or usury. Apart from work income, an appeal to vanity might be an incentive for those who are more egotistical.
I suggest you address more specific proposals. The Ayn quotes cast aspersions on imagined groups of people without addressing who is advocating what and for what purpose.

it not only adress it but it also helps prove it. Most flavours of anarcism involve direct democracy. I have nothing against other people organizing themselves the way they see it is "fairer", better or other reason, provided they do not force others who do not share ther vision and not force others at gunpoint, AND provided those other institutions made by workers don't engage in force as well.
Living in a direct democratic society would hopefully be preferable to the kind of society we currently live in.

[Havet]

Communism proposes that nobody be allowed to exploit others through profit, rent, or usury. These are economic mechanisms, based upon property law and laws defining the nature of money. A free market doesn't necessarily require exploitative types of income in order to function. Work income can suffice.
'Workers deciding how to do things, etc' is a democratic mechanism for decision-making. This says nothing about how well these decisions play out.

The problem comes when defining exploitation. But from what you said, i would agree with you.


People are free to use their talents, they just won't be rewarded monetarily through profit, rent or usury. Apart from work income, an appeal to vanity might be an incentive for those who are more egotistical.
I suggest you address more specific proposals. The Ayn quotes cast aspersions on imagined groups of people without addressing who is advocating what and for what purpose.

Again i can agree with what you said.

regarding the quote, its a scientist/engineer/indutrialist who is saying the quote to the looters/moochers goverment in the society explaining why the reasons for the goverment action are wrong and with the purpose of explaining things to people in a radio speech. The quote is part of the speech known as "This is John Galt Speaking"


Living in a direct democratic society would hopefully be preferable to the kind of society we currently live in.

again couldn't agree more

[Lynx]

regarding the quote, its a scientist/engineer/indutrialist who is saying the quote to the looters/moochers goverment in the society explaining why the reasons for the goverment action are wrong and with the purpose of explaining things to people in a radio speech. The quote is part of the speech known as "This is John Galt Speaking"
I have heard that this speech is about 50 pages long. I haven't read the book, but I'm doubtful whether the government portrayed in Atlas Shrugged is a reasonable facsimile of communism.

[Havet]

I have heard that this speech is about 50 pages long. I haven't read the book, but I'm doubtful whether the government portrayed in Atlas Shrugged is a reasonable facsimile of communism.

yes it is 50 pages long. The government portrayed isn't communist at all, or advocating communism by its name, at least.

"In the world of Atlas Shrugged, society stagnates when independent productive achievers began to be socially demonized and even punished for their accomplishments."

"Rand characterizes the actions of government employees in a way that is consistent with public choice theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory), describing how the language of altruism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism) is used to pass legislation that is nominally in the public interest (e.g., the "Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Rule," and "The Equalization of Opportunity Bill,") but which in reality serves special interests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_interests) and government agencies at the expense of the public and the producers of value." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_shrugged#cite_note-29)

By the way, here is he speech, in case you wish to see it.

"This is John Galt Speaking" (http://amberandchaos.com/?page_id=106)

[Lynx]

yes it is 50 pages long. The government portrayed isn't communist at all, or advocating communism by its name, at least.

"In the world of Atlas Shrugged, society stagnates when independent productive achievers began to be socially demonized and even punished for their accomplishments."

"Rand characterizes the actions of government employees in a way that is consistent with public choice theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory), describing how the language of altruism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism) is used to pass legislation that is nominally in the public interest (e.g., the "Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Rule," and "The Equalization of Opportunity Bill,") but which in reality serves special interests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_interests) and government agencies at the expense of the public and the producers of value." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_shrugged#cite_note-29)
I hope then that you won't believe that communism would lead to such policies.

By the way, here is he speech, in case you wish to see it.

"This is John Galt Speaking" (http://amberandchaos.com/?page_id=106)
I will read it, thank you.

[Havet]

I hope then that you won't believe that communism would lead to such policies.

depends; by what some people advocate here it would, but by what other people advocate here it won't. It all depends on the degrees of logic/reason in people's arguments


I will read it, thank you.

tell me what you have thought of after you read it, if you can.

[Lynx]

tell me what you have thought of after you read it, if you can.
I read part of it, skimmed through the middle and read the latter part.
I don't know what to say. It is an unusually long speech and seems to advocate a meritocratic system.
John Galt the Profiteer would have no place in a communist system. His desire for profit would have been stifled. But John Galt the Inventor would be welcomed. For example:

“Like the man who discovered the use of steam or the man who discovered the use oil, I discovered a source of energy which was available since the birth of the globe, but which men had not known how to use except as an object of worship, of terror and of legends without a thundering god. I completed the experimental model of a motor that would have made a fortune for me and for those who had hired me, a motor that would have raised the efficiency of every human installation using power and would have added the gift of higher productivity to every hour you spend at earning your living.

“Then, one night at a factory meeting, I heard myself sentenced to death by reason of my achievement. I heard three parasites assert that my brain and my life were their property, that my right to exist was conditional and depended on the satisfaction of their desires. The purpose of my ability, they said, was to serve the needs of those who were less able. I had no right to live, they said, by reason of my competence for living: their right to live was unconditional, by reason of their incompetence.
Why would he be condemned in such a manner?
This is not a form of communism I'm familiar with. The potential benefits of his new motor would have been the focus of discussion. Communism would not want to provide John Galt with profit, but it would want to see the project go forward, and allocate resources to that end. Additional incentives might also be a possibility.
Under capitalism, the project would not have gone forward if 'the parasites' had believed his motor was unprofitable. The benefits from increased productivity would have been irrelevant.

[Havet]

I read part of it, skimmed through the middle and read the latter part.
I don't know what to say. It is an unusually long speech and seems to advocate a meritocratic system.
John Galt the Profiteer would have no place in a communist system. His desire for profit would have been stifled. But John Galt the Inventor would be welcomed. For example:

Why would he be condemned in such a manner?
This is not a form of communism I'm familiar with. The potential benefits of his new motor would have been the focus of discussion. Communism would not want to provide John Galt with profit, but it would want to see the project go forward, and allocate resources to that end. Additional incentives might also be a possibility.
Under capitalism, the project would not have gone forward if 'the parasites' had believed his motor was unprofitable. The benefits from increased productivity would have been irrelevant.

The "parasites" plan was the following (1st person narrative):

“Do you know how it worked, that plan, and what it did to people? Try pouring water into a tank where there’s a pipe at the bottom draining it out faster than you pour it, and each bucket you bring breaks that pipe an inch wider, and the harder you work the more is demanded of you, and you stand slinging buckets forty hours a week, then forthy-eight, then fifty-six - for your neighbor’s supper - for his wife’s operation - for his child’s measles - for his mother’s wheel chair - for his uncle’s shirt - for his nephew’s schooling - for the baby next door - for the baby to be born - for anyone anywhere around you - it’s theirs to receive, from diapers to dentures - and yours to work, from sunup to sundown, month after month, year after year, with nothing to show for it but your sweat, with nothing in sight for you but their pleasure, for the whole of your life, without rest, without hope, without end … From each according to his ability, to each according to his need …"

John Galt: "I quit that factory. I quit your world, I made it my job to warn your victims and to give them the method and the weapon to fight you. The method was to refuse to deflect retribution. The weapon was justice."

By victims he means industrialists.

“If you want to know what you lost when I quit and when my strikers deserted your world-stand on an empty stretch of soil in a wilderness unexplored by men and ask yourself what manner of survival you would achieve and how long you would last if you refused to think, with no one around to teach you the motions, or, if you chose to think, how much your mind would be able to discover-ask yourself how many independent conclusions you have reached in the course of your life and how much of your time was spent on performing the actions you learned from others-ask yourself whether you would be able to discover how to till the soil and grow your food, whether you would be able to invent a wheel, a lever, an induction coil, a generator, an electronic tube-then decide whether men of ability are exploiters who live by the fruit of your labor and rob you of the wealth that you produce, and whether you dare to believe that you possess the power to enslave them"

"When you clamor for public ownership of the means of production, you are clamoring for public ownership of the mind. I have taught my strikers that the answer you deserve is only: ‘Try and get it.’"

[Lynx]

The "parasites" plan was the following (1st person narrative):

“Do you know how it worked, that plan, and what it did to people? Try pouring water into a tank where there’s a pipe at the bottom draining it out faster than you pour it, and each bucket you bring breaks that pipe an inch wider, and the harder you work the more is demanded of you, and you stand slinging buckets forty hours a week, then forthy-eight, then fifty-six - for your neighbor’s supper - for his wife’s operation - for his child’s measles - for his mother’s wheel chair - for his uncle’s shirt - for his nephew’s schooling - for the baby next door - for the baby to be born - for anyone anywhere around you - it’s theirs to receive, from diapers to dentures - and yours to work, from sunup to sundown, month after month, year after year, with nothing to show for it but your sweat, with nothing in sight for you but their pleasure, for the whole of your life, without rest, without hope, without end … From each according to his ability, to each according to his need …"
He is describing a welfare state. Communism does not seek to exploit the effort of one group of workers for the lack of effort of others. In any economic system, there will only be so much social surplus. That's because people work to satisfy their own needs, and then they stop.

"When you clamor for public ownership of the means of production, you are clamoring for public ownership of the mind. I have taught my strikers that the answer you deserve is only: ‘Try and get it.’"
The sharing of human knowledge is very common, as no one is intellectually self-sufficient. Perhaps John Galt's real name is Robert Goddard, a genius who disliked sharing the brilliance of his own mind. In doing so, he sold himself short.

[Havet]

He is describing a welfare state. Communism does not seek to exploit the effort of one group of workers for the lack of effort of others. In any economic system, there will only be so much social surplus. That's because people work to satisfy their own needs, and then they stop.

I think some people here advocate that (not sure that is what communism actually advocates that). They wish to steal the people who made factories possible (both workers and industrialists) to give it to workers alone.


The sharing of human knowledge is very common, as no one is intellectually self-sufficient. Perhaps John Galt's real name is Robert Goddard, a genius who disliked sharing the brilliance of his own mind. In doing so, he sold himself short.

John Galt is a person who wishes not to be stolen, enslaved and murdered simply because someone needs something he justly owns.

[Lynx]

I think some people here advocate that (not sure that is what communism actually advocates that). They wish to steal the people who made factories possible (both workers and industrialists) to give it to workers alone.
Communism is not a welfare state. The quote from Marx appears to have been taken out of context.
Expropriation of the means of production brings those means into the democratic process.

John Galt is a person who wishes not to be stolen, enslaved and murdered simply because someone needs something he justly owns.
If communism needs his new motor design, why would communism harm him? Why would John Galt refuse to share his knowledge and realize the fruits of his labour?

[Havet]

Communism is not a welfare state. The quote from Marx appears to have been taken out of context.
Expropriation of the means of production brings those means into the democratic process.

You mean stealing from those who justly acquired property? How is that different from any burglar?


If communism needs his new motor design, why would communism harm him? Why would John Galt refuse to share his knowledge and realize the fruits of his labour?

"I completed the experimental model of a motor that would have made a fortune for me and for those who had hired me, a motor that would have raised the efficiency of every human installation using power and would have added the gift of higher productivity to every hour you spend at earning your living."

"Then, one night at a factory meeting, I heard myself sentenced to death by reason of my achievement. I heard three parasites assert that my brain and my life were their property, that my right to exist was conditional and depended on the satisfaction of their desires. The purpose of my ability, they said, was to serve the needs of those who were less able. I had no right to live, they said, by reason of my competence for living: their right to live was unconditional, by reason of their incompetence."

In other words: He refused because it was his work and only him would have the freedom to decide what to do with it.

[Lynx]

You mean stealing from those who justly acquired property? How is that different from any burglar?
Expropriation can mean giving the owner the market value of the property. This is the way it is typically done.
There are different forms of theft: primitive accumulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_accumulation), buy low, sell high (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_(finance)), Ponzi schemes, predatory pricing, etc. The difference from burglary is one of risk and subtlety.

In other words: He refused because it was his work and only him would have the freedom to decide what to do with it.
He decided to act out of spite, but only because the reaction he received was spiteful. Do you really believe communists are spiteful people?

[RGacky3]

You mean stealing from those who justly acquired property?

Is there such things as justly acquired slaves? Lets say you did'nt enslave them you just bought them?


He refused because it was his work and only him would have the freedom to decide what to do with it.

Sure, but if your not going to put something to use, whats the point of inventing it. You have a strange notion of human nature.


They wish to steal the people who made factories possible (both workers and industrialists) to give it to workers alone.


The industrialists FUNDED the factories (different thing), also if the workers and industrialists have an equal vote over the matters of the factories, I'm ok with that too.

[Havet]

Is there such things as justly acquired slaves? Lets say you did'nt enslave them you just bought them?

There isn't such thing as a justly aquired slave because a slave has no right to liberty, according to the owner.

However, normal workers have liberty, they do not have an owner, they trade labour for wages, and they are not forced to being there other than the physical reality which can be argued also "forces" employers to be there: if they do not hire the factory doesnt produce and he doesnt get any money.


Sure, but if your not going to put something to use, whats the point of inventing it. You have a strange notion of human nature.

He is going to put it to use. But since he invented it, he wants to decide when and how to put it to use. He doesn't want the "ruling class" (in the book, a mixture of corrupted capitalists and government politicians) to dictate him that he has to share his invention with them, at gunpoint, or else.



The industrialists FUNDED the factories (different thing), also if the workers and industrialists have an equal vote over the matters of the factories, I'm ok with that too.

The industrialists also maintain the factories. Usually they manage the resources and workers and develop better ways to produce. Since they "own" the "house", they decide what happens inside it, so its natural they have an unequal vote over the matters of the factories. However, I, like you, don't oppose workers and industrialists arranging to have an equal vote over the matters of the factory. Or even workers getting their own factory without any industrialist. So long as they don't force a former owner to give it up at gunpoint, steal a factory or, if created by their own effort without any industralist, try to impose their method of management to other factories by force, then i'm ok with that.

[RGacky3]

However, normal workers have liberty, they do not have an owner, they trade labour for wages, and they are not forced to being there other than the physical reality which can be argued also "forces" employers to be there: if they do not hire the factory doesnt produce and he doesnt get any money.

Well, my point was that property is almost never justly aquired, because like slaves, the way it became property to begin with was just justified. So like slaves, even if you buy proerty, it does'nt automatically make it justified.

As for the worker, although the Capitalist and slave owner go about things in a differeny way, the outcome, the power structure and the distribution of wealth is essencially the same.


He is going to put it to use. But since he invented it, he wants to decide when and how to put it to use.

Sure, why does that conflict with communism? The only reason someone would restrict use of an invention would be either for recognition of profit, the latter would'nt be an issue.


The industrialists also maintain the factories. Usually they manage the resources and workers and develop better ways to produce.

Generally hired people do that.


Since they "own" the "house", they decide what happens inside it, so its natural they have an unequal vote over the matters of the factories.

So you agree that workers are not being paid their fair share, and owners ar essnecially using "ownership" as a form of extortion.


However, I, like you, don't oppose workers and industrialists arranging to have an equal vote over the matters of the factory.

Meanlingless under Capitalism because in the end no matter what its up to the "industrialist".


So long as they don't force a former owner to give it up at gunpoint, steal a factory or, if created by their own effort without any industralist, try to impose their method of management to other factories by force, then i'm ok with that.

Ownership is enforced by gunpoint, and as you indirectly agreed with, IS extortion.

Your list of work an industrialist might do is meaningless, because I could list work that a king does, it does'nt justify his position or his wealth though.