Who Will Clean the Sewers?

[redstar2000]

In communist society, work is "voluntary"...that is, any given person may "take" what s/he "needs" for a dignified life without being compelled to so much as lift a finger.

Thus people will gravitate towards that kind of "work" which they enjoy; people will not have "jobs" but rather interests or projects that they will pursue with considerable diligence...because it's "what they really like to do" since they "are really good at it".

There will be, of course, social prestige attached to particular interests or projects...those who choose interests and projects which benefit society in ways that people perceive as important will be highly regarded. Those whose interests are more personal will probably be looked down upon and possibly even snubbed entirely.

It will be something of a trade-off: "she is an electrical engineer specializing in reliable power generation...and is on the A-list of every social group in the region" while "he spends his time studying old internet archives and only other antiquarians enjoy his company".

But what of the socially necessary tasks that are not interesting and rewarding in themselves?

Or as you will hear from day one of first telling people that you're a communist: who will clean the sewers?

If survival is not at stake, who will have the "incentive" to do the "dirty jobs"?

Let's face it, "boring, dirty, and unpleasant" is a reasonably accurate description of most jobs under capitalism.

Some of this unpleasantness could be alleviated by simple improvements in working conditions and reduction in the hours of work "expected"...it's one thing to spend a day on the back of a garbage truck once a week or once every two weeks and quite another to do it 48 hours a week. It's one thing to do it with a facemask and other protective gear, quite another to do it without.

This suggests one possible approach: divide up the unskilled shit work amongst everyone. Everyone "must" put in, say, 8 or 16 hours a month performing some unpleasant but socially necessary task.

But you see the problem: whenever you say people "must" do something unpleasant, then you open a barrel of unpleasantness yourself. You will have to find people who are willing to enforce the "must"...a very unpleasant job in itself and a sharp reduction in the "freedom from compulsory labor" that we made our revolution to secure.

We could ask for volunteers, of course. And the minority who do volunteer could receive "social rewards" in prestige, public acclamation, etc. We could "teach" an "ethic" of volunteering on behalf of the general public and this would somewhat increase the "pool" of volunteers over time.

When 20th century Leninists talked about "the new man of socialist society", this is what they had in mind...even though there was no way any significant number of such "new men" (or women) could emerge in a Leninist class society. In class society, to volunteer for unpaid labor is, from a material standpoint, stupid.

And we know that material reality prevails, do we not?

Were we to "make a list" of the "shit jobs" under capitalism, some interesting conclusions could be drawn.

Many of those tasks will no longer be "necessary" under communism. In particular, the vast armies of clerical workers employed by state and corporate bureaucracies can be demobilized...as neither states nor corporations will exist.

The process of replacing manual labor with machine labor (automation/cybernation) in controlled environments has been going on for a long time and will doubtless continue. By the time of a communist revolution, there may not be much of it left.

Much of the "service industry" may well disappear after the revolution for a different reason--what many people actually do in the contemporary service industry is what servants used to do in the 19th century. It was considered "degrading" then; and is not particularly admired now.

Since a lot of it is not really "socially necessary", a lot of it will probably disappear.

Still, when all is said and done, the sewers must either be cleaned on a regular basis or they will become blocked, turds will float in the streets, and your toilet will stop working. How can we get people to be "willing" to take care of this socially necessary but very unpleasant task?

Well, let's consider. Remember that communism is not "Heaven". However abundant the material goodies of life might be, there will not be an infinite supply of everything that's desirable.

In other words, there will be rationing...to make sure that everyone gets an approximately equal share.

There will also be waiting lists...it's not possible to produce everything that everyone wants all at once. For example, products that require a substantial amount of co-ordinated labor to produce may be in relatively short supply...and though available upon request, may involve a considerable period of waiting before one is ready for you.

Here is a "window of opportunity" that communist society could use: those who are willing to clean the sewers and do the other kinds of boring, unpleasant jobs go to the head of the list for desirable goods in short supply. They do not get "more" than others in the long run, but they get what they want sooner.

What such people lose in "job satisfaction", they gain in "immediate material gratification"...or as close to "immediate" as we can manage.

I regard this as a temporary measure, of course. In the long run, we humans should be able to build robots to do any task that humans find boring or unpleasant. But the artificial intelligence community is still a long way from building anything more intelligent than an insect. So we need a way to "plug" the technological "gap" and make sure that the socially necessary work gets done.

In addition, there is a kind of justice to this arrangement that strongly appeals to me. In capitalist society, those who have the most interesting and challenging careers also gain the greatest material rewards; while millions of people who do the grubby shitwork that keeps civilization functioning receive, for their indispensable labors, shit pay and no respect!

Thus, when you see someone driving a new car or who has a really swell apartment in a new building, unlike now, you will know that they really earned those things, doing work that you would not want to have to do yourself.

As we need to remind ourselves, under communism things will be very different.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Eastside Revolt]

100% agreed

Excellent post my freind.

[truthaddict11]

excellent post comrade!

[truthaddict11]

elijahcraig asked me to post this for him,


When 20th century Leninists talked about "the new man of socialist society", this is what they had in mind...even though there was no way any significant number of such "new men" (or women) could emerge in a Leninist class society. In class society, to volunteer for unpaid labor is, from a material standpoint, stupid.



(eligahcraig)
I guess you are not aware of the massive amounts of voluntary labor which built Socialist USSR, eh?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Great post and great question comrade.

About those certain questions about unpleasant jobs, we know there are many things to do, in the case of the question:
- criminals could do it for a certain amount of time (according to what they did)
- voluntary work as you suggested (there will always be some dedicated person that will offer his/her time to do such things and i liked your idea of giving them benefits in "waiting lists" and such things)
- inventing new systems to do this tasks (in the sewer example, there could be an alternate sewer that puts on it some kind of purifying liquid that turns poo into shampoo or something, or a robot as you said). I'm sure in an ideal communist society (with or without state) there will always be someone who will try inventing this type of things
- finally, another option is rotating this type of tasks between people, in case not many offer themselves as volunteers.

So we shouldn't worry much about this.

btw nice site redstar

[redstar2000]

I guess you are not aware of the massive amounts of voluntary labor which built Socialist USSR, eh?

One thing about Leninists, they do have a pungent sense of humor.

I mean, who else would describe a gulag as "volunteer labor"? :o

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

WE alrready have it figured pops. The anarchists will clean the sewers.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 7 2003, 10:25 PM
WE already have it figured pops. The anarchists will clean the sewers.
Interesting prediction.

We'll see how things actually work out.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[BuyOurEverything]

I think its a great idea to move people who do undesirable work to the front of waiting lists and to eventually develop technology to do it. However, I don't believe in getting criminals to do it or rotating it among people. Forcing criminals to do it will not cover all the work that needs to be done and will make the work appear socially even worse than it did before (if I see criminals all chained up and cleaning the sewers, I sure as hell wont be very motivated to get out there and do it.) Although perhaps you could offer to reduce criminals' sentences if they agree to do some of this work. Rotating work among people is an equally bad idea because it is horribly inefficient. Training that many people to clean the sewers (yes even shit work requires training) would use up valuble resources in the wasted time spent training and being trained. Secondly it is a waste of talent. It's stupid to have someone who could be doing brain surgery in a hospital out sweeping the streets.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 8 2003, 01:25 PM
WE alrready have it figured pops. The anarchists will clean the sewers.
And thus is the reason why your vanguardism will never prevail in an advanced capitalist society. You hold the masses, particularly those you disagree with, in contempt. The people in advanced capitalist societies are far more educated than the peasants in the vanguardist eras, and are not easily fooled. Why bother replacing a old set of bosses with a new set of bosses?

As for your prediction, we will wait and see. :redstar2000:

[sc4r]

Its nice to see so many people getting all excited that they have found a new way to avoid saying what they mean.

The reality is dead simple all of you recognise that people will have to be rewarded or compelled to clean the sewers.

Reward=pay=wages. It really does not matter that you are going to say 'it isnt payment because they will just get it sooner'; thats actually all anyone ever does when they hand over cash for goods. Get it now rather than perhaps get it later. He who has more more now is richer and wealthier.

Its also amazing to hear RS admit to the culture of shortages which his ideas will herald in. Somewhat staggering to think that he believes people are going to get all excited and enthusiastic about introducing this. Its nothing less than rank contradiction for him to explicitly refer to rationing (who will set the quota's RS?) given the amount of space he regularly devotes to assuring us that in his system everyone will be allowed to take what they perceive they need (which will translate in most people minds to taking whatever it is they want).

None of you address the question of just who is going to administer this 'reward now for cleaning the sewers' scheme in the absence of any central authority of any sort.

If you ever learn that evasive words can be spotted by non zealots a mile off and that pretty phrases are no substitute for substance you will have made a huge leap forward.

[Vinny Rafarino]

And thus is the reason why your vanguardism will never prevail in an advanced capitalist society. You hold the masses, particularly those you disagree with, in contempt. The people in advanced capitalist societies are far more educated than the peasants in the vanguardist eras, and are not easily fooled. Why bother replacing a old set of bosses with a new set of bosses?

As for your prediction, we will wait and see.




I reckon we will.

[Cassius Clay]

Interesting post.

As with everything I think you should take into account the geopolitics. It is very likely that in the aftermath of a revolution there is going to be a great deal of destruction and ruin, it may not be so bleak but at the same time I cant imagine it being a heaven on earth and given that there was a revolution presumably the workers and their allies would of been pretty fed up with material conditions that the previous Capitalist regime offered.

While there are many problems we face in this particular aspect of the new Socialist/Communist society, ie who does the 'dirty jobs'. We do have some advantages, these have been pointed out allready but let me repeat them.

1= That there will be people who will vollunter for jobs like these.

2= It is most likely that a revolution tends to 'brutalise' people, while this is hardly good in terms of other things it does offer a advantage in that people will be used to hardship. For example, cleaning the sewers is nothing compared to what the Capitalists did before or during a civil war type scenario.

3= If something directly affects people they will work to prevent the situation becoming worse. In your scenario of 'turds floating in the streets' people will work to get rid of it. Like most of us here at Che.Lives dare I say I'm a lazy bastard. Never the less when not only my room becomes a mess but the rest of the house is a tip I will give up a few hours of my time and clean it. And it feels so much better when it's done. While a material award allways helps, it's not neccessary in all conditions.


Anyway I feel we should as Communists allways lead by example. In Albania Enver Hoxha's sons went out and built railways with the average joe, dare I say it may of been a bit of a propaganda stunt but it also worked. I think what redstar suggests is something along the lines of the Stakhonvite movement in the USSR what with 'materail' rewards. Regarding the 'Gulag' (read prisons, but let's give it a scary name) prisoners who were convicted criminalls did do 'forced' labour, but this was restricted to 6 to 8 hours a day in which time they were paid roughly the same as the average worker on the outside.

[Invader Zim]

I believe that Redstar is correct; a material "bonus" seems the most obvious way to get people to do unpleasant jobs, whether that is right or wrong. It also seems that as people are reaping equal reward from society they should put in equal time and effort into unpleasant jobs to keep the society running.

My belief is that even in socialism there will be those who wish to corrupt the system, petty criminals etc. Rather than jailing them as is done in capitalist society, why not have them doing the unpleasant jobs of society as community service. I would say that is a better system, except when the truly dangerous criminals such as rapists and murderers are concerned; forced confinement is certainly necessary for them.

[Som]

A very good thread.


WE alrready have it figured pops. The anarchists will clean the sewers.

Oh? going to let the four of them you haven't killed out of the gulag for a couple hours? Do you really want to do that? They might get fiesty and start some trouble, that infantile disorder of theirs really can get nasty.


None of you address the question of just who is going to administer this 'reward now for cleaning the sewers' scheme in the absence of any central authority of any sort.

Well that wasn't the point of this thread was it?

Though if it was it would matter just as little, considering you've already dismissed all the ideas of organization without a gun to your head.


But on to the topic of the thread

Adding on a bit, I think that within a communist society one would expect that there would be a large sense of community returning to society. As capitalist society seperates people from their neighbors and the like, communist societies would come to have a stronger sense of community, especially as the local commune and municipality becomes one of the primary organizational structures.

The small towns and rural areas of course would be the closest of these, as they are even today, but even in an urban or suburban setting it would become a huge part in everyday life. With this comes a lot more validity to the idea of rotating the position and a democratic arrangement for this.

Trying to give a more clear example of how this would work out, in a very simple way, say we take a fairly small amount of people who work together as a muncipality, village, commune or whatever unit works out, it doesn't matter the setting, urban or rural. Lets say the particular problem is picking up the trash. At the town meeting, where everyone who wished to attend could and most would, a list of the residents would be set up giving a rotation. The list would be posted up, and of course changes could be requested as needed, excuses could be made, people would argue about it and so on, especially the people that didn't bother attend the meeting.
Of course the immediate complaint from the gun toters is that absolutly no one would do it, somehow no one would volunteer their time, and everyone out of their own selfish greed and lets say.. rational self interest, would just sit on their ass and take the smell of the trash heaps. Well, of course once the trash starts to pick up people would spring into action, its not exactly pleasant to have piles of it laying about. Once a nice rotation is agreed on, even if they were stubborn about it, to keep the slackers, the 2 out of 10 jerks who just say they wont do it. Well quite simply, i dont think the other 8 would put up with that shit. If they just give them a good cold shoulder or they might feel compelled not to pick up the trash of those two jerks at all.
Theres no right answer here, its just working things out with different groups of people.
Whether its someone dumping piles of crap into the back of their car or spending a few days at the trash syndicate is also a trivial matter.

A similiar set could be used for the organization of most any of the unpleasantries. A rotating turn at volunteering at the various crappy syndicates, where representation for service might end up generally turning out.

Also should mention that its definitely not a static system and would adapt to whatever actually turns out to be the best way to get things done.

Material incentives might still be used, as in the case of moving to the list, but I think a lot of it can be with far less.

[Inti]

I would work wherever I was needed.. All for the people.. All for one and one for all.. You wouldnt have to have the same job the rest of your life.. :ph34r:

[Umoja]

I moderately agree with sc4r, although I see the wisdom in Redstars post, but he seems to not have a willingness for enforcement. With the mythical "destruction of global Capitalism" a happy-idealistic anarchist state will never arise. A society without leaders is not a society without rules, and communities as a whole deciding all the members need to devote a few hours a week to undesirable labor doesn't seem like a great problem to me.

[Spartacus2002]

we'll get the convicts to clean the sewers, instead of sitting watching tv in comfy jails

[The Feral Underclass]

Unlike sc4r's version of running society this is a logical approach to the organization of society. I think it is important to talk about these issues, it gives us a better understanding of what exactly it is we are trying to achieve. Freedom can only come when people are taking responsibility. I tend to agree with Som, that the majority of people will see these jobs as necessities rather than something they could do in order to gain material iobjects.

I would like to think that the world we live in after the revolution would be void of this kind of materialism. I wouldnt like to think that people regarded having a beautiful flashy car more important than helping his comrades do a job that would benifit society.

As for leaders I think it is important to remember that we are all adults and are mature enough to organize ourselfs. As I was saying in another thread, I am living in a commune and there are no leaders here. Of course there are people who are more vocal than others, but when it comes to organizing the rota for the kitching duties, everyone is given the opporunity to say what they prefer to do. It is interesting that Redstar used the sewage as an example to discuss this theory. We have such a sewege at our commune. It is a disgusting place and you get to see indepth what people get up to. We find some very interesting things in those tanks. Anyway, cleaning out the sewage is a very horrible thing, shuverling shit isnt exactly the most thrilling of jobs, but it gets done, without any moaning. In fact, having said this, we have people who actually enjoy doing it. They see it as an opportunity to get away from things for a while, see the countryside views and do some honest hard work. I am sure that in a post revolutionary situation the cleaning of our sewers will be something that a few comrades would do with great enthusiasm.

I also think it is very sad that some of the usual suspects can not see RS's ideas with the respect they deserve, and automatically, as if programmed, disagree with them. What is being suggested here is not only logical, but ensures a free and equal society that many people will have fought strongly to achieve.

[Inti]

What would we do with all the present convicts? I guess that there are lots of people who havent commited the crimes they were charged of.. How would the justice system look like? Would it be possible to be let free if you have lot of dough like it is nowadays?

[sc4r]

Libertarian. With all due respect to you, a small commune, almost by defintion populated with very very committed people, does not remotely serve as a model for a large sociaety. Thats without remarking that such communes rarely have a long life span; even the committed people get tired of living in them, tired of the arguments about who is and is not pulling their weight, and nearly always break up as people go off and take the benefits to themselves of Liberal society after all.

Tell me that this is not true, I dare you.

Logic has bugger all to do with it. Capitalism is Logical, so is liberalism, so is communism, so is socialism. They all are. The question is not about logic but about realism. It's about answering which of them, if any, genuinely reflect how people do behave and react; not about whether IF people behaved and reacted in certain ways the proposal would work.

I'm sure you woild like to think that everything will be lovely after 'the revolutuon'; I'm sure you would like to think that 'the revolution' will spontaneosly usher in full on communism. But since you have as yet failed even to define just who or what you are 'revolting' against I rather think that what you would like to think has little if any connection to what is likely to happen.

It is hard not to be direct and say that while I'm sure you are a lovely person your grasp of practical realities is almost nil. You can wisdh and hope for whatever you like; I'm a bit more gropunded in what can be, not what I'd ideally like things to be.

sorry chum. the above was hard; I dont expect you to take it, and like it; but nothing is more destructive of achieving acceptance of socialist ideas in normal people than them hearing wishy washy wishful thinking. Their reaction is nearly always to say 'ahhhh bless em; daft hippies the lot of em, ignore them'.

[The Feral Underclass]

Why are we talking about criminals as if they where some kind of comodity we can choose what we do with. A society like this would create very few criminals in the sense of propertry criminals, who are in prisons because capitalism has forced them into these conditions. If you are talking about rapists and murderers, do you not think it would be better for society to try and understand these people, rather than forcing them to do jobs we regard as unwanted.

We have a lot to benifit from murderers and rapists. It is imporant for society to understand why people behave like this. Criminals are people just as we are, and there intergration into society has to be dealt with in a progressive way in order to try and safegaurd against rapes and murders by psychopaths from happening again. Maybe these things happen because of chemical inbalances or social conditioning. Either way, it is reactionary and against the ethos of everything we stand for to simply dismiss these people as second class citizens.

Of course in the very rare case of murder or assault, it should be the communities and federations to deside what is an appropriate punishment. if they think it is important for these people to serve a custodial sentance or infact do community work, it is up to them to decide. Other than that, those people who are criminally insane, paedophiles or dangerous should be taken care of and for want of a better word investigated, so we can understand and help them.

We have a lot to learn from the things we dont understand.

[sc4r]

Why oh why do you people talk like this. To me it is utterly incomprehensible.

You wish to rehalibitate and forgive Rapists, murderers and paedophiles; 'its not their fault'. But anyone you suspect of wanting to achieve anything beneficial for themselves by working within the rules of established society is labelled a 'Capitalist' and you will declare that he/she is fair game for random murfer (as in RS's stsement of what he would happily see done to an amaerican worker in Iraq).

It is beyong believe that you cannot see the contradiction and outright sillines in such ideas.

[BuyOurEverything]

I agree with Liberatarian Commie. If we forced criminals to do our dirty work and there was more work to be done, wouldn't we be a little tempted to liberalise our definition of "criminal" or hand out longer sentences? Also, as I've said before, making criminals do undesirable work would make that work even more undesirable to any potential volunteers.

[BuyOurEverything]

Nothing is anyone's fault. Everything a person does is based on their upbringing and environment or their genetics, none of which can be controlled by them. Debate that.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 11:29 PM
Nothing is anyone's fault. Everything a person does is based on their upbringing and environment or their genetics, none of which can be controlled by them. Debate that.
Why would I ? I'm not hung up on fault, blame or anything else like that. I'm hung up on actions and consequences.

If you demonise and attack 'capitalists' they will hit back. Action - consequence.

Their are far more followers of the status quo than their are oif us. If we fight them we will lose . Action - consequence.

If you devote resources to people known to have anti social tendencies then others lose out. Action - consequence.

If you say 'kill capitalists' and 'forgive Rapists' many will say 'you are a nutter'. Action - consequence.

What things would be like in an ideal world where everyone got along, needed no direction, co-ordinated actions perfectly, and had no selfishness; where there was no residual memory or desire for 'capitalism', and where (for sure) the hearts and minds of most people were already devoted to communsim; is pretty incidental. We are not living in such a world. Nor are we likely to be anytime soon. Nor is such a world likely to arise whole and complete just because a few wishy washy 'comunsists' say how wonderful such a world would be.

[redstar2000]

This thread is not really about crime and criminals in communist society (maybe I'll write something on that soon)...

But briefly, the objective of communist society with regard to such people is to rehabilitate them.

Granted, this must be balanced against the need that people have for personal security from random violence; unlike some, I personally have no problem with the death penalty for violent crimes, even those short of murder.

Labor as punishment for non-violent crimes degrades the concept of labor itself. How can we, on the one hand, praise those who perform important functions on behalf of the community and then turn around and watch people in chains clean the highways (as is the case now in a number of American states)?

Our ethic at least approaches the view that socially useful work is almost a privilege...how can we then use it for punishment?

I don't think that will work.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[BuyOurEverything]

sc4r, I sort of agree with you. That comment was kind of off topic and wasn't really directed at you, just something to think about for those moralizing "crime and punishment" types. I agree with the second part of what redstar said but how the fuck can you talk about rehabilitation in this thread and then advocate hanging petty criminals with barely a trial in another? And for what crimes do you think the death penalty is warranted? But as for sc4r, what precisely do you mean when you talk about actions a consequences and capitalists striking back?

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 12:53 AM
Here is a "window of opportunity" that communist society could use: those who are willing to clean the sewers and do the other kinds of boring, unpleasant jobs go to the head of the list for desirable goods in short supply. They do not get "more" than others in the long run, but they get what they want sooner.

But won't the offer/presentation of material reward (or, to use another term, material capital) destroy any intrinsic motivation within these volunteers?

A person who may volunteer to clean out the sewers to get a new car, for a material reward, is not very likely to do it out of the goodness of his/her heart the next time round.

[BuyOurEverything]

Yes of course it will but if we just leave it to volunteers, it wont get done. Simple as that.

[Conghaileach]

So, even now, there's no such thing as people who volunteer for tasks, some of which aren't pretty?

[redstar2000]

Here is something interesting.

I posted this piece at another "left" forum called urban75.

http://urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.ph...&threadid=54261 (http://urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54261)

What I note is that in both forums, the serious responses offered a number of ideas for handling the problem...including some things I wasn't even aware of.

Now, imagine a post-revolutionary society, where millions of people are contributing their ideas for solving practical problems, arguing over those ideas, and democratically deciding which are the best ideas.

Do you see how utterly banal and foolish the objections of our sheep-herders and reformists really are?

We communists are "impractical"...we don't have a "plan" formulated by "expert consultants" and implemented on the orders of a "great leader".

How utopian!

And right here in front of us we have a small example of what ordinary people can do when they put their minds to it.

Yes, ordinary people. There are no "geniuses" here. Certainly not me! :D Just people who are interested in the shape of future society and willing to give some thought to the matter.

And the usual narrow-minded philistines who can't see past class society, hierarchy, professional "expertise", and, of course, their own "career paths".

Yes, we are "impossible" -- their worst nightmares made flesh.

No wonder they hate us!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Jesus Redstar. what crapola.

generating ideas isnt especially hard. What is difficult is 1st determing which of the ideas are total cack, which are 24 carat gold, and which need work but have potential. Then you have the problem of obtaining agreement to actually follow the ones that are gold and ensuring that a few maverick individuals dont fuck up the efforts of everybody else.

Gaining this sort of agreement and co-operation is hard enough when you are dealing with simple problems, few options and small groups. As the complexity and number of any of these things grows the difficulty also grows, it grows exponentially. Merely getting ideas (which dont have to ever be tested or even justified hard) from a bunch of people on an internet site does not approximate even in a miniscule way to the level of difficulty.

Even simple things like voting procedures are not as straightforward as you probably imagine. Try proposing (say) five fairly attractive options and getting one hundred people to genuinely agree that they will all adopt just one of them and see the arguments rage and rage endlessly. Some wil suggest a simple majority. The ones that think they may lose if thats adopted will suggest perhaps a transferable vote system, someone contrary will suggest changing the rules, someone else will suggest a sixth option, some people will suggest a different transferable voting system. Committees will be suggested (and refused) ; etc etc etc.

Gaining an agreement to agree is the easy bit, and even that is hard. Its actually getting an agreement in practise that will not only be accepted but will stick that is really hard (because some will also claim 'I did not understand').

This is what you need profesisonal simplifiers and polarisers (which is in effect what politicians actually do) for. They dont neccessarily have to be empowered to enact legislation, but they are needed to bring everything down to a yes/ no choice to be placed in front of others. Then you need a very strong social fabric to ensure that those who voted in the minority wont subvert the decision.

It occurs to me that the Social fabric of your state far from being very strong, is going to be very weak. After all, you supposedly have people who have just carried out a violent revolution in order to get what they wanted. I cant imagine such people are going to make ideal conformist citizens inclined suddenly to just accept not getting what they want in some cases.

Yes if everyone thought the same and wanted the same or were unaffected by what someone else wanted this sort of thing would be simple. But people are not like that. WE all want different things, and I cant see any reason to think this is going to change.

Then you have the problem of co-ordinating efforts even once a course of action is agreed. You dont seem to think that this is actually needed. I refer you to the shoe problem posed elsewhere (for about the 10th time) and await your answer.

Your society would operate at something like a stone age level of orgainisation, and would quickly start to see its technology revert to that level as economies of scale got progressily more and more difficult to achieve because nothing was being levelled or optimised. Thats even assuming that your optimistic notions about people volunteering for the unwanted jobs could be taken seriously. In reality some thing simply would not get done at all (who is supposedly ensuring they do?). In the impossible event that you ever got all your myriads of people to spontaneously adopt your communism it would take about 5 mins before they equally spontaneously started to become disillusioned with what it seemed to be giving them.

[BuyOurEverything]

So, even now, there's no such thing as people who volunteer for tasks, some of which aren't pretty?

of course they do but not nearly on the scale that's needed to get things done if volunteers were the only labour being used.

[mEds]

good question hermano!

[The Feral Underclass]

First of all sc4r, I don't want your fucking respect, so you can cut the pleasentries you twat...

a small commune, almost by defintion populated with very very committed people, does not remotely serve as a model for a large society.

Why?

Thats without remarking that such communes rarely have a long life span; even the committed people get tired of living in them, tired of the arguments about who is and is not pulling their weight, and nearly always break up as people go off and take the benefits to themselves of Liberal society after all.

i'm not sure what communes you've been a part of. I think I can safly assume none. Yes, there are people who do slack of at times but this commune has been going for five years now, and is a part of a network of communes that have existed since the first one was started in Denmark in 1971. We have one in the UK, three in denmark, two in the staes, one in china, one in india and one in south africa. The work that we do directly benifits 2.5 million people in suyb saharan africa. I think I can safly say that this community has been able to stand the test of time. So put that in ya pipe and smoke it.

Capitalism is Logical...

This just proves what a **** you really are. I am not going to try and argue with you. You don't listen to me, and accuse me of being a wishy washy hippie. What's the fucking point.

I'm sure you woild like to think that everything will be lovely after 'the revolutuon';

Do you actually read the fucking posts I write, or do you just have osme kind of programmed response. When did I ever say that it would all be lovly after the revolution. Your living a fantasy world.

I'm sure you would like to think that 'the revolution' will spontaneosly usher in full on communism.

I just can't be bothered.

But since you have as yet failed even to define just who or what you are 'revolting' against I rather think that what you would like to think has little if any connection to what is likely to happen.

You really haven't been listening have you!

It is hard not to be direct and say that while I'm sure you are a lovely person your grasp of practical realities is almost nil.

How have you drawn this conclusion?

You can wisdh and hope for whatever you like; I'm a bit more gropunded in what can be, not what I'd ideally like things to be.

Because your an unidealistic, conservsative, reactionary prick, who can't see past his own pension. Go Fuck yourself you ****!

sorry chum. the above was hard; I dont expect you to take it, and like it;

I just think your an idiot.

but nothing is more destructive of achieving acceptance of socialist ideas in normal people than them hearing wishy washy wishful thinking.

Why is it that you think that these ideas are wishy-washy. My ideas are about the freedom of human beings. The ability for people to live without want or need for anything. I am sorry if my idealism is too radical for you. If you think that these principles are principles that serve no purpose in the future of the planet then you are an enemy to the people. If you think for some reason that these ideas are unpractical then what are the hundreds of Communist and Anarchists movements trying to do at the moment. Your just completly out of touch with anything that is happening. You talk alot but you dont seem know very much. Your a hypocrite. Your worse than a Fascist. At least a Fascist has the decency to stand up for what it believes.

Their reaction is nearly always to say 'ahhhh bless em; daft hippies the lot of em, ignore them'.

How can someone claim to be so open minded, a fighter for equality, and still be so fucking stupidly ignorant. God I feel sorry for whoever has to be near you...you make me me sick.

[Vinny Rafarino]

It appears the hack has got his game face on today ladies and gentlemen. let's go to the tape and see if indeed he is not simply full of shit like usual. Fun with the Hack lesson one;


Now, imagine a post-revolutionary society, where millions of people are contributing their ideas for solving practical problems, arguing over those ideas, and democratically deciding which are the best ideas.

Do you see how utterly banal and foolish the objections of our sheep-herders and reformists really are?

:lol:

"Well it appears we did not have to get far to see The Hack in fine form today, look at the flat feet Stu, look also how he uses that lazy jab with no set-up to anything big... he's dipping back into his old repetoir again, he must already be running out of gas Stu."

"I think you're right Cliff, the old man should realise when his time has come and gone. There's no longer any room for him any longer, he reminds me of when when Ray Leonard last fought Roberto Duran, It's such a shame Cliff, I just don't think the old man knows his time is up. He's gonna keep standing during the bell thinking he can recapture his youth like another George Foremen"

"Indeed Stu, what we have here is a fighter that's well past his prime and no longer has that left hook, overhand right combination that made him famous in his youth. Here is a man that is running purley on heart Stu. It's dismall to see a once proud fighter go down like this."

"Agreed Cliff, that's why the best always retire early. It's better to go out on top than to fade away to nothing"




We communists are "impractical"...we don't have a "plan" formulated by "expert consultants" and implemented on the orders of a "great leader".

How utopian!

And right here in front of us we have a small example of what ordinary people can do when they put their minds to it.

Yes, ordinary people. There are no "geniuses" here. Certainly not me! Just people who are interested in the shape of future society and willing to give some thought to the matter.

And the usual narrow-minded philistines who can't see past class society, hierarchy, professional "expertise", and, of course, their own "career paths".

Yes, we are "impossible" -- their worst nightmares made flesh.

No wonder they hate us!



"Oh goodness Stu, that was a devastating shot he just took, the man's out on his feet. Someone's got to throw the towel in, it's just horribly embarrassing"

"And the Ref has stopped the fight Cliff, with 35 seconds remaining in the first round. This represents the end of a long and illustrious career for Redstar "The Hack" 2000 Cliff. An era has closed tonight ladies and gentlemen, the old have shown they have the heart but simply lack the necessary skills to fight productively. We can only hope after this devastating loss that The Hack will no longer try to enter the ring ever again. Perhaps he should take up announcing...."

[the SovieT]

first of all...

in "communist society" you are talking about a somewhat DISTANT future..

one must remember that the feudalist system endured for many years, and the capitalist system still perdures and will perdure for some years..

so when we talk about the final objective of life, COMMUNISM, one can be certain to be talking about several centurys..

so now i ask..

will there evem BE sewers then?
or will they even need to be "cleaned"?

we are talking about a far future..
and that implies technological advances..

so in resume one can only expeculate how "communism" will really be...

[redstar2000]

...so when we talk about the final objective of life, COMMUNISM, one can be certain to be talking about several centuries.

Well, no one here has a crystal ball in good working order. Everything we say about the future must involve a considerable degree of speculation.

But I hope you are not hinting at that shabby Leninist mythology concerning "centuries of socialism" prior to a communist society. That's just their "ticket to ride" and has no relevance to this discussion.

A proletarian revolution in the second half of this century and the more or less immediate transition to communism would carry in its wake a good deal of the infrastructure that exists now.

And it would have to be maintained.

Also, I would not assume that communism is "the final objective of life". What humans will come up with next is impossible to predict...but we hairless primates do love to come up with new stuff and new kinds of relationships.

In a thousand years, communism may seem as primitive and backward to people then as Assyria or Babylon seem to us.

Things change.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

Off topic post...

I can't imagine how I missed this "gem" the first time through the thread, but it's too "good" to pass up.

But anyone you suspect of wanting to achieve anything beneficial for themselves by working within the rules of established society is labelled a 'Capitalist' and you will declare that he/she is fair game for random murder (as in RS's statement of what he would happily see done to an American worker in Iraq).

The reformist refers, of course, to a post I made suggesting that it was perfectly legitimate for the Iraqi resistance to kill American civilian construction workers in Iraq...as their presence there was in furtherance of the aims of U.S. imperialism.

Beyond that, however, note carefully this language and what it implies: "...anyone you suspect of wanting to achieve anything beneficial for themselves by working within the rules of established society is labelled a 'Capitalist'..."

First, it's inaccurate. I don't label a worker who tries to get a better job "a capitalist".

But what do you think he really means by the phrase "working within the rules of established society"? Not engaging in criminal behavior as currently defined by law? Participating in bourgeois electoral politics? Starting a business? Becoming a cop? Joining an imperialist army?

Calculated ambiguity is the last refuge of a reformist.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

:D

[sc4r]

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 9 2003, 09:23 AM
First of all sc4r, I don't want your fucking respect, so you can cut the pleasentries you twat...

a small commune, almost by defintion populated with very very committed people, does not remotely serve as a model for a large society.

Why?

Thats without remarking that such communes rarely have a long life span; even the committed people get tired of living in them, tired of the arguments about who is and is not pulling their weight, and nearly always break up as people go off and take the benefits to themselves of Liberal society after all.

i'm not sure what communes you've been a part of. I think I can safly assume none. Yes, there are people who do slack of at times but this commune has been going for five years now, and is a part of a network of communes that have existed since the first one was started in Denmark in 1971. We have one in the UK, three in denmark, two in the staes, one in china, one in india and one in south africa. The work that we do directly benifits 2.5 million people in suyb saharan africa. I think I can safly say that this community has been able to stand the test of time. So put that in ya pipe and smoke it.

Capitalism is Logical...

This just proves what a **** you really are. I am not going to try and argue with you. You don't listen to me, and accuse me of being a wishy washy hippie. What's the fucking point.

I'm sure you woild like to think that everything will be lovely after 'the revolutuon';

Do you actually read the fucking posts I write, or do you just have osme kind of programmed response. When did I ever say that it would all be lovly after the revolution. Your living a fantasy world.

I'm sure you would like to think that 'the revolution' will spontaneosly usher in full on communism.

I just can't be bothered.

But since you have as yet failed even to define just who or what you are 'revolting' against I rather think that what you would like to think has little if any connection to what is likely to happen.

You really haven't been listening have you!

It is hard not to be direct and say that while I'm sure you are a lovely person your grasp of practical realities is almost nil.

How have you drawn this conclusion?

You can wisdh and hope for whatever you like; I'm a bit more gropunded in what can be, not what I'd ideally like things to be.

Because your an unidealistic, conservsative, reactionary prick, who can't see past his own pension. Go Fuck yourself you ****!

sorry chum. the above was hard; I dont expect you to take it, and like it;

I just think your an idiot.

but nothing is more destructive of achieving acceptance of socialist ideas in normal people than them hearing wishy washy wishful thinking.

Why is it that you think that these ideas are wishy-washy. My ideas are about the freedom of human beings. The ability for people to live without want or need for anything. I am sorry if my idealism is too radical for you. If you think that these principles are principles that serve no purpose in the future of the planet then you are an enemy to the people. If you think for some reason that these ideas are unpractical then what are the hundreds of Communist and Anarchists movements trying to do at the moment. Your just completly out of touch with anything that is happening. You talk alot but you dont seem know very much. Your a hypocrite. Your worse than a Fascist. At least a Fascist has the decency to stand up for what it believes.

Their reaction is nearly always to say 'ahhhh bless em; daft hippies the lot of em, ignore them'.

How can someone claim to be so open minded, a fighter for equality, and still be so fucking stupidly ignorant. God I feel sorry for whoever has to be near you...you make me me sick.
What is to say about this really. You wanna fight me? How are we going to organise that then?

You seriously dont get why a smal commune has an entirely different scale of problems to an entire nation ? Fine work out how many ways there are to permutate the wishes of 50-100 basically like thinking people and how many ways there are to do the same for 50 million. It is gobsmackingly naibe to think they are of a similar scale. One is a trivial exercise, the other is monumentally hard.

5 whoile years yoir commune has stuck it !!! jeeze , well that makes me eat my words; NOT.

I think you can safelt say that your commune is part of an extreme extreme minority movement that would get fuckng crushed if it came directly up against even the smallest of the many neo Nazi groups that exists in the UK alone. I think you can also safely say that the test of time is usually reckoned to be a good deal longer than 35 years for sum total of 9 communes. At that rate of progress you will take over europe in errr lets see
about 30 coberts per year. Ohh yeah..... Never.

Ye smate Capitalism is 'lOgical'; care to explain what's illohical about it. I expct to see your kind's usual crap which indicates that they dont know what 'logical means' (you;ve alreadt demonstrated quite adequatelety that you dont know what either Socailsim or Capitalism actually are thanks - your buddy RS wiould, if he were not so bloofy obseesed with gaining recruits to his BS, concur). Arr you one of those dickheads who think logical is synonomous with rigt? Caoialism id percetly logical given its axioms (whic is all any logical staement ever is). So is Anarcj-hism. The issue is which of the axioms id correct. Frankyly it is distrubing to say the SAnachy gets beaten even by Caoitalism in this resoect.

Yes I read what I reply to. No you dont actually say anything useful or definitive. Just as you have not said anything in that last post.

I can swear too. big deal. I've actually never in all my time on the internet seen such an appallingly badmouthed post. I've argued with the most right wing conservatives, racists and cappies you have ever met, and never come across something as foul mouthed as the tirade you just launched.

And of course it confirms what I already knew. That Anarchists are the lowest of the low. They have nothing really to offer except abuse, and no ability whatsoever to take criticism. They demand, they dont plan.

I'm embarrassed that I ever stood up for them. Which I often have.

Know something else? If anybody spoke to Redstart as you just have to me, or if (say) RAF spoke like that to you, or if I did, then RS would be caling for their immediate expulsion, on 'arsehole f=gounds' care to bet that he will overlook you doing it because you happen not to be arguing with him?

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 01:19 PM
Off topic post...

I can't imagine how I missed this "gem" the first time through the thread, but it's too "good" to pass up.

But anyone you suspect of wanting to achieve anything beneficial for themselves by working within the rules of established society is labelled a 'Capitalist' and you will declare that he/she is fair game for random murder (as in RS's statement of what he would happily see done to an American worker in Iraq).

The reformist refers, of course, to a post I made suggesting that it was perfectly legitimate for the Iraqi resistance to kill American civilian construction workers in Iraq...as their presence there was in furtherance of the aims of U.S. imperialism.

Beyond that, however, note carefully this language and what it implies: "...anyone you suspect of wanting to achieve anything beneficial for themselves by working within the rules of established society is labelled a 'Capitalist'..."

First, it's inaccurate. I don't label a worker who tries to get a better job "a capitalist".

But what do you think he really means by the phrase "working within the rules of established society"? Not engaging in criminal behavior as currently defined by law? Participating in bourgeois electoral politics? Starting a business? Becoming a cop? Joining an imperialist army?

Calculated ambiguity is the last refuge of a reformist.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
Oh you get better and better in your absurdities .

Its not fucking hard chummy. You advocate killing american cistizens who are merely doig their job. I dont.

There not a helluva lot of ambiguity there.

'working within the rules of established society' means exactly what it says. It means that if someone today decides that he want to be a currency speculatir because the rules of sicety allow hin to do so and also believes in changing those rules, then he is a socialist by my reckoning. This is exactly what I've said elsewhere too. No ambiguity of any sort is present.

You apparemtly condem peope for what they do applying the rule of your post communist society to them. I assume (since you condone murder of people who work for a force that you disgree with) that your communist society of free dignified equals will also be allowed to top anyone they happen to think is not perfect. Great society. (paedophile would be Ok though, RS would treat them with respect).

You will neber get ambiguity from me son. I call a spade a spade and face up to the unpopularity of parts my views foursquare. I dont even attempt to be all things to all men as you do.

[redstar2000]

Off-topic post #2...

You advocate killing American citizens who are merely doing their job. I don't.

Although English, the reformist has an admirable mastery of the American vernacular.

Remember the Nuremberg trials...when the Nazi defendants would get up in court and say they were "only obeying their orders"?

"We" Americans scoffed at such "Prussian" servility. The reason for "our" scorn is that "we" have a much nicer way of saying the same thing.

Whenever any American does something foul and disgusting and is called on it, this is what you'll hear...

"Hey, I was just doing my job."

Cops say it. Mercenaries say it. Corporate executives say it. Even politicians say it.

They ought to put it on the fucking currency...it's the national excuse for being a turd.

Naturally, the reformist likes the expression...he probably plans to use it himself.

'working within the rules of established society' means exactly what it says. It means that if someone today decides that he want to be a currency speculator because the rules of society allow him to do so and also believes in changing those rules, then he is a socialist by my reckoning.

And a curious form of "reckoning" it is. We are to concentrate exclusively on what people say and ignore completely what people do.

That makes sense, not!

You apparently condemn people for what they do, applying the rule of your post communist society to them. I assume (since you condone murder of people who work for a force that you disagree with) that your communist society of free dignified equals will also be allowed to top anyone they happen to think is not perfect. Great society.

Yes, just as we applied anti-Nazi standards to Nazi behavior, we will apply communist standards to anti-communist behavior.

What else would you expect?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 02:21 AM
Off-topic post #2...

You advocate killing American citizens who are merely doing their job. I don't.

Although English, the reformist has an admirable mastery of the American vernacular.

Remember the Nuremberg trials...when the Nazi defendants would get up in court and say they were "only obeying their orders"?

"We" Americans scoffed at such "Prussian" servility. The reason for "our" scorn is that "we" have a much nicer way of saying the same thing.

Whenever any American does something foul and disgusting and is called on it, this is what you'll hear...

"Hey, I was just doing my job."

Cops say it. Mercenaries say it. Corporate executives say it. Even politicians say it.

They ought to put in on the fucking currency...it's the national excuse for being a turd.

Naturally, the reformist likes the expression...he probably plans to use it himself.

'working within the rules of established society' means exactly what it says. It means that if someone today decides that he want to be a currency speculator because the rules of society allow him to do so and also believes in changing those rules, then he is a socialist by my reckoning.

And a curious form of "reckoning" it is. We are to concentrate exclusively on what people say and ignore completely what people do.

That makes sense, not!

You apparently condemn people for what they do, applying the rule of your post communist society to them. I assume (since you condone murder of people who work for a force that you disagree with) that your communist society of free dignified equals will also be allowed to top anyone they happen to think is not perfect. Great society.

Yes, just as we applied anti-Nazi standards to Nazi behavior, we will apply communist standards to anti-communist behavior.

What else would you expect?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
Oh as RAF says you are a master at saying someome is saying what they are not saying.

At nurembourg people might have said 'I was only obeying orders'. But the whole point is that they were not working within the rules. Their orders broke the rules.

It should be obvious to anyone that a job which involves gassing people because they are jews and one which involves perhaps repairing carburettors are not remotely similar in context. Nor BTW was arbitrary murder even of Nazi torturers ever condoned by anyone. Execution after trial is a somewhat different proposition.

Terrorist groups (which is what you are suggesting we become) who target civilians always create fierce antipathy and far from advancing their cause always create hostility towards it.

If you want any chance of convincing Americans that Socialism is a good idea its a truly dreadful idea to declare war on them.

[The Feral Underclass]

At nurembourg people might have said 'I was only obeying orders'. But the whole point is that they were not working within the rules. Their orders broke the rules.

November 1934, Hitler passed the Nuremburg Laws which banned Jews from doing anything. Sitting on aprk benches, becoming doctors, lawyers, marrying non-jews etc etc.

1939, all jews where orded to register with the reich security commission and for most where inturned into Ghettos.

1941, Reinhard Hydrich, Adolf Eichmann and other top SS and SD officials signed a declaration which was entitled "The Jewish Question" which legalised the mass extermintaion of Jews and other undesirables.

So actually, these men where working within the rules, as the State quite clearly stated that it was acceptable to persecute jews and in the end made i State policy to exterminate them.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 10 2003, 07:35 AM
At nurembourg people might have said 'I was only obeying orders'. But the whole point is that they were not working within the rules. Their orders broke the rules.

November 1934, Hitler passed the Nuremburg Laws which banned Jews from doing anything. Sitting on aprk benches, becoming doctors, lawyers, marrying non-jews etc etc.

1939, all jews where orded to register with the reich security commission and for most where inturned into Ghettos.

1941, Reinhard Hydrich, Adolf Eichmann and other top SS and SD officials signed a declaration which was entitled "The Jewish Question" which legalised the mass extermintaion of Jews and other undesirables.

So actually, these men where working within the rules, as the State quite clearly stated that it was acceptable to persecute jews and in the end made i State policy to exterminate them.
No they were not. The rules within germany might have allowed them to do the things they dis. But the rules of the wider society to which Germany and they belonged forbade germany from writing such rules.

You always give precedence to the wider society. Because othjerwise by a process of reduction ad absurdum you can end up writing your own personal rules and claimig that you have followed them.

This is even without mentioning the patent absurdity of contrasting a position talken about torturers and one taken regarding mechanics. The difference is frankly self evident.

Threaten a man with death for carrying out what he sees as a perfectly reasonable action and he is not going to start admiring you, he is going to see you as a threat to be stamped out. It really is that simple.

[redstar2000]

Oh as RAF says you are a master at saying someone is saying what they are not saying...Terrorist groups (which is what you are suggesting we become) who target civilians...

Yeah, tell me about it.

Tell me how my statement saying that it is perfectly legitimate for Iraqi resistance fighters to target American civilians in occupied Iraq is the same as suggesting that "we should become a terrorist group that targets civilians".

You and Comrade RAF make a terrific pair; I wish you every happiness together.

But the rules of the wider society to which Germany and they belonged forbade Germany from writing such rules.

What platonic realm does this come from? What country broke off diplomatic relations with Germany because of its vicious anti-semitic legislation? What country intervened to stop the Germans from breaking "international law"? The record clearly shows that up until the moment of Nazi surrender, Germans who carried out the mass murder of the Jews "were acting legally" according to the laws of their country and well within the limits of toleration of the "international community".

The Germans, in fact, were quite careful to "observe the rules"...a Jew in German-occupied Hungary with a Swedish passport was not murdered. The Swedish Embassy in Budapest handed out thousands of passports and thus saved thousands of Jews from the death camps.

So the answer is no, squire. The German "excuse" was just as good as the American "excuse" is now...not worth a shit.

And, by the way, your example of carburetor repair is particularly ill-chosen. They had to do that in the early days of the death camps too...since they used truck engines and carbon monoxide poisoning prior to the use of poison gas.

Nor BTW was arbitrary murder even of Nazi torturers ever condoned by anyone. Execution after trial is a somewhat different proposition.

I'd condone it.

Shall I trouble your sleep this evening with red nightmares? I'm of the firm opinion that every person above the level of ordinary member in the Nazi party should have been summarily executed. In other words, every Nazi official should have been shot upon capture...including all personnel in the regular SS (and all officers in the SS military units).

Ain't I just awful?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

You aint awful. You are a tit.

I've no idea why you think that murdering a civilian does not count as murdering a civilian, or by what strange definition this would not count as terrorism.

It really does not matter that no country declared Germany persona non grata before the war. In the first place nearly all the horrors for which individual germans were held accountable happened while it was on. In the second this has no bearing on whether or not societies rules were being broken.

The real argument is in any case not about pedantic points of law. But about the very obvious point that a concentration camp guard is just not in the same category as a mechanic.