fascismWhy no fascists?

[Captain Marvelous]

If this section is about opposing ideas then how come fascism isn't allowed?

[Luc]

I thikn cause guy who owns site is in germany and it's illegal.

also they're (fascists) mostly stupid as fuck and debating them is worthless

[Landsharks eat metal]

We don't want to give them another platform to spew their bullshit.

[Captain Marvelous]

Ok that's 2 different answers. Which is it?

[Landsharks eat metal]

Ok that's 2 different answers. Which is it?

There's been threads about this before, and it seems to be a bit of both... I'm not sure if there's really been consensus, though.

I've heard that the "illegal" argument isn't true since the server is in the US or something like that, but I'm not positive.

[Revolution starts with U]

Fuck fascists. That's why. What more do you need to know?

[Luc]

Ok that's 2 different answers. Which is it?

you can have more than 1 reason to not do something :sleep:

[Luc]

There's been threads about this before, and it seems to be a bit of both... I'm not sure if there's really been consensus, though.

I've heard that the "illegal" argument isn't true since the server is in the US or something like that, but I'm not positive.

oh U.S.? my bad :lol:

[Captain Marvelous]

Actually you know what, I don't really know what fascism entails. Is it exactly the same as nazism or are there differences? And actually what is the difference between fascism and communism? And are there any similarities?

Not that it makes any difference to me however, as I don't ever vote, and I never would. And I don't support any of these isms. I think all these isms and political parties are just masks on the same face, no matter what they say.

[Landsharks eat metal]

oh U.S.? my bad :lol:

Yeah, the owner is German, but I'm pretty sure the last time this thread came around, someone pointed out that that is not where the server is.

[Captain Marvelous]

you can have more than 1 reason to not do something :sleep:

I'm just trying to clarify what the reason is. If it's both, fine. If it's one or the other, that's fine too.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Fascists are not even taken seriously by capitalists in the outside world, so why do we, as revolutionary leftists (their worst enemies), even have to be exposed to them on the internet, which is where they escape to to avoid the real world? They don't have any good ideas anyways, so it is pointless to hear their viewpoint. They would just be über trolls.

[Captain Marvelous]

Well I like to hear everybody's side.

[Ostrinski]

It's just not worth the time or energy that comes with having them around.

[Misanthrope]

They are known to gather personal information and use violence. We will not be associated with them for image sake and for safety sake.

[Sasha]

All the reasons given above plus we don't accommodate people who's explicit intention it is to kill us...
And I never met a fash who wasn't a racist/sexist/homophobe, and they are not allowed here (either)
And...
And..
And.

[Captain Marvelous]

So when someone says that communism and fascism are the same, what could possibly make them think that? What are the reasons why someone would consider them to be either the same or similar?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

So when someone says that communism and fascism are the same, what could possibly make them think that? What are the reasons why someone would consider them to be either the same or similar?

Because their only education on the subject comes from the most vile, ignorant, and lying capitalists, like Glenn Beck.

[Bronco]

So when someone says that communism and fascism are the same, what could possibly make them think that? What are the reasons why someone would consider them to be either the same or similar?

Normally because they associate them both with having strong, powerful states which seek to crush individualism and peoples rights and freedoms, but people who argue that normally have a misconception of Communism or misrepresent it, basing it on the USSR, North Korea etc

[Captain Marvelous]

What does Glenn Beck say about communism and fascism being similar?

[Omsk]

Glenn Beck is an idiot.

[Per Levy]

Is it exactly the same as nazism or are there differences?

not exactly the same, nazism(german national socialism) is branch of fascism with slight differences here and there.


And actually what is the difference between fascism and communism? And are there any similarities?

commies are highly opposed to private proberty, want the rule of the proletariat and in the long run a free classless society where everyone is an equal.

fashs want the rule of the national bourgeosie, want to top down class based society and defend private proberty(ergo pro capitalistic).

[Captain Marvelous]

I came across this just now :

FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all of the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and put them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you need.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them and sells you the milk.

PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and shoots you.

DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

LIBERTARIAN/ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

PURE ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.



Is all of that correct?

[Bronco]

I came across this just now :

FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all of the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and put them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you need.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them and sells you the milk.

PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and shoots you.

DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

LIBERTARIAN/ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

PURE ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.



Is all of that correct?

No. It's just a dumb cow analogy that's meant to be funny

[Luc]

I'm just gunna be frank

Captain Marvelous are you a troll?

[l'Enfermé]

Fascists are not even taken seriously by capitalists in the outside world, so why do we, as revolutionary leftists (their worst enemies), even have to be exposed to them on the internet, which is where they escape to to avoid the real world? They don't have any good ideas anyways, so it is pointless to hear their viewpoint. They would just be über trolls.
Just replace "Fascists" with "Marxist-Leninists/Stalinists" and your statement is still correct.

Yes, yes I know, but I couldn't resist the urge.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Just replace "Fascists" with "Marxist-Leninists/Stalinists" and your statement is still correct.

Yes, yes I know, but I couldn't resist the urge.

Just replace "fascists" with "Chechen nationalists" and my statement would still be correct.

[Sasha]

Just replace "fascists" with "Chechen nationalists" and my statement would still be correct.

A stalinoid scolding a trot for nationalism? :laugh:

[Geiseric]

inb4 flame war. LOL I had to say it at least once.

Fascism = "Authoritarian," Capitalism. Many qualities such as racism and corporatism are already present in Capitalist society, however the only difference is that there is more State intervention and much more use of force to keep class divisions in place.

[l'Enfermé]

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.



Hahahahahha.

[Captain Marvelous]

Ok, if the cow analogy isn't accurate, that's fair enough. However, using that analogy, in my opinion it goes :

You have 2 cows. You look after them. You get the milk. If you want to share, you share, and if you don't, you don't.

[Positivist]

And actually what is the difference between fascism and communism?


The only reason people equate the two is when they misassociate communism with Soviet dictators or the like. Theoretically they are opposites. Communism advocates people of all cultural backgrounds living in harmony in a stateless society. Fascists advocate the murder of all who fall outside of their sociocultural identity by a totalitarian government

[l'Enfermé]

Just replace "fascists" with "Chechen nationalists" and my statement would still be correct.
Thank you for, yet again, reminding me of my ancestors and their contemporaries that fought against their oppressors, Czarist, Stalinist or Capitalist.

[Blake's Baby]

What goes?

In communism, 'you' don't have two cows. Because in order to own those cows, you dispossessed everyone else. Why should you have two cows?

[roy]

Ok, if the cow analogy isn't accurate, that's fair enough. However, using that analogy, in my opinion it goes :

You have 2 cows. You look after them. You get the milk. If you want to share, you share, and if you don't, you don't.

Does this highly principled approach still apply if people are starving and the production of food has been monopolised?

[Blake's Baby]

I think Captain Marvellous is the world's only supplier of cow products, having stolen both the world's cows, from what I can see of the thought experiment.

[Caj]

Humans own the cows and exploit them through the extraction of surplus milk. The cows, following their species interests, rise up, overthrow the humans, and seize the farm to use it to repel the counter-revolutionary humans. Once the humans are all dead, the farm withers away, and the cows collectivize all the milk produced to be distributed in accordance with needs. That's cowmunism.

[Captain Marvelous]

Does this highly principled approach still apply if people are starving and the production of food has been monopolised?

Well, there are two ways of looking at it. One is in terms of having a "system" that answers such questions. The other is to trust in human nature. Left to their own devices people are generally kind. Individuals are free to form charities and help those without, help them get back onto their feet and do what they have to do to gain whatever resources they need. Or individuals can simply help another person out.

I came across something ages ago (I wish I had a link, but I don't) demonstrating that when a certain town in the UK had all its traffic lights removed, drivers became more considerate and careful, and accidents, well I don't think there were any. Not that it should be necessary to prove because human nature is generally good, but it's an example of the fact that you don't need so many rules. You don't need systems that people have to follow in order to get the best results. The fact that so many charities exist (which are of course created voluntarily) also shows that people generally tend to want to help others. Community spirit isn't something that is created by any system, it exists anyway, and you need to have less rules and less systems in order for that human nature to manifest.

[Blake's Baby]

And your point is?

Why should you have the cows?

[Captain Marvelous]

My point is made in my post.

[Blake's Baby]

You should have all the cows because people can form charities? Is that it?

[Captain Marvelous]

No. I don't think I mentioned anything about anyone needing to have all the cows.

[Ostrinski]

Cows will be owned by the community and farms will be democratically controlled by the farmers this isnt that hard

[Captain Marvelous]

Cows will be owned by the community and farms will be democratically controlled by the farmers

When?

[Blake's Baby]

No. I don't think I mentioned anything about anyone needing to have all the cows.

OK. Why do you need to have any cows?

[Captain Marvelous]

OK. Why do you need to have any cows?

I don't need to have anything. I have whatever I have. Needing to have something doesn't come into it. I either have, or I don't.

[Ostrinski]

When?after workers have power

the hell are we talking about cows for anyway

[Blake's Baby]

OK. You don't. Problem solved. As Brospierre says, we all own the cows and we share the milk and eggs. Yes, under socialism, cows make eggs.

EDIT: Captain Marvellous is talking about cows because we won't let him talk about fascists, I think.

[roy]

So the answer to my question is basically, "Yes"?

Yeah, charities exist and most people are still dirt poor because there is no law unto the bourgeoisie which exploits at will.

[hatzel]

the hell are we talking about cows for anyway

My thoughts exactly. Fuck the cows already!

...not to be taken literally of course...

[Captain Marvelous]

So the answer to my question is basically, "Yes"?

Yeah, charities exist and most people are still dirt poor because there is no law unto the bourgeoisie which exploits at will.

I don't agree with capitalism, and I don't like the fact that most people are busy with trivial distractions and things that keep people isolated and divided. But I do agree with community spirit. Sometimes the solutions to problems are there the whole time, you just have to remove those things which get in the way of them manifesting as they should. Communism / fascism / any other ism is not necessary. This is mainly a male dominated world, and as such we have loads of competing isms designed to try and deal with people's problems, but they are all extreme in one way or another. A more balanced (male / female) way of looking at things is much more beneficial. ie not trying to find a solution to everything, rather seeing existing solutions waiting to manifest (solutions that are being currently held back by competing isms). Human nature is one such thing. Community spirit is another.

[Blake's Baby]

But human nature isn't real.

Community spirit, I doubt there'd be anyone here that was against community spirit. What is 'communism' but the idea that the community is the foundation of society? Communism is the ultimate in community organisation.

That's why you don't get to keep the cows.

[#FF0000]

Community spirit is another.

Yeah, sure, but what's community spirit worth in a society or a group that is structured around unjustifiable hierarchies and class divisions?

[Captain Marvelous]

But human nature isn't real.

Community spirit, I doubt there'd be anyone here that was against community spirit. What is 'communism' but the idea that the community is the foundation of society? Communism is the ultimate in community organisation.

That's why you don't get to keep the cows.

Yes human nature is of course real. Do you need to apply communism with your family, friends and acquaintances, next door neighbours? No, you don't. Why? Human nature. Community spirit. It's easy to have good relations with those close to you, but we don't necessarily treat strangers the same as we treat family, friends and acquaintances. But the fact that we can have good relations with those close to us shows that our human nature, if harnessed, can do good. What needs to be done is simple, and that is to bring out the best in people. But because human nature is good, you don't need to do much, other than remove those things which are a distraction, and things which divide. All of these competing isms are an example of a distraction, as well as something that divides. You don't need to force things.

[Captain Marvelous]

Yeah, sure, but what's community spirit worth in a society or a group that is structured around unjustifiable hierarchies and class divisions?

Not a lot. But there's no need to force the extreme opposite.

[#FF0000]

Not a lot. But there's no need to force the extreme opposite.

There's really no 'extreme opposite'. Either a society is based on class divisions or it is not.

[Captain Marvelous]

There's really no 'extreme opposite'. Either a society is based on class divisions or it is not.

Correct.



Current system : class division & heierarchy (supressing human nature in one direction)

Middle ground : letting people do what they want, within reason, with minimal systems in place to regulate behaviour, letting human nature do its thing naturally

Extreme opposite of current system (in reaction to current system) : forcing people to share (suppressing human nature in the other direction)

[Blake's Baby]

'Forcing' people to share?

Your proposed system forces them not to share. Extremist.

[Captain Marvelous]

'Forcing' people to share?

Your proposed system forces them not to share. Extremist.

Incorrect. It doesn't force people not to share. It lets people either share or not share. It doesn't force or prevent. That's why it's the middle ground. A system that forced people to not share would be even more extreme than the current system.

[Blake's Baby]

Incorrect. It doesn't force people not to share. It lets people either share or not share. It doesn't force or prevent. That's why it's the middle ground. A system that forced people to not share would be even more extreme than the current system.

Yes it does.

How your system works:

You have a cow, I want to share it, you don't.

Therefore it forces me not to share.

Extremist.

EDIT: and this is how our system works, it's called 'capitalism'.

[roy]

I don't agree with capitalism, and I don't like the fact that most people are busy with trivial distractions and things that keep people isolated and divided. But I do agree with community spirit. Sometimes the solutions to problems are there the whole time, you just have to remove those things which get in the way of them manifesting as they should. Communism / fascism / any other ism is not necessary. This is mainly a male dominated world, and as such we have loads of competing isms designed to try and deal with people's problems, but they are all extreme in one way or another. A more balanced (male / female) way of looking at things is much more beneficial. ie not trying to find a solution to everything, rather seeing existing solutions waiting to manifest (solutions that are being currently held back by competing isms). Human nature is one such thing. Community spirit is another.

There are no existing solutions. Nothing significant can change within the lens of capitalism. I don't think there is a universal concept of human nature and I don't know what the idea of "community spirit" does to help anyone.

How does communism hold anything back?

[Captain Marvelous]

Yes it does.

How your system works:

You have a cow, I want to share it, you don't.

Therefore it forces me not to share.

Extremist.

No that's not correct. If I have a cow, and you want me to share it with you, I'm not forced to refuse, and I'm not forced to share. I'm not forced, period. And I'm also not prevented, period.

A system in which I would be forced not to share is not what I'm talking about at all. Such a system would be even more extreme than the current one. I'm talking about not being forced to make any decision that I don't want to make, whatever that may be.

[Captain Marvelous]

There are no existing solutions. Nothing significant can change within the lens of capitalism. I don't think there is a universal concept of human nature and I don't know what the idea of "community spirit" does to help anyone.

How does communism hold anything back?

I'm not in favour of capitalism. Communism hold people back by not letting their good nature manifest naturally. It forces people to share, regardless of whether they want to or not. You can't force good nature out of people, it's already there. Left to its own devices it has more potential than within any system that forces it to come out. It shouldn't be restrained but likewise it shouldn't be forced. I'll grant you this much, and that is that it's better to force it than restrain it, but both are extremes, and both ignore the fact that by itself, there's more potential. People conduct themselves best when they have a personal incentive. They are more likely to go that extra mile and therefore yield better results. And also, people appreciate it when someone is doing something out of kindness. And that creates even more community spirit / reciprocation. Good human nature runs itself. And community spirit can grow exponentially.

[Ostrinski]

What we consider to be human nature has changed with the evolution of the mode of production. With a change in mode of production, the whole fabric of society is changed, and thus the way we interact in society. And since our conception of human nature is based on observing human relations, human nature itself can be said to be simply a social construct, useful only for describing the nature of human interaction in a given place and time.

By the way, if your proposed system or ideology doesn't address the direct interest of any economic class then it holds no water.


No that's not correct. If I have a cow, and you want me to share it with you, I'm not forced to refuse, and I'm not forced to share. I'm not forced, period. And I'm also not prevented, period.

A system in which I would be forced not to share is not what I'm talking about at all. Such a system would be even more extreme than the current one. I'm talking about not being forced to make any decision that I don't want to make, whatever that may be.You'll share your damn cows whether you like it or not bourgeois scum, you will take part in worker's democracy or live in the forest

[Geiseric]

Well, there are two ways of looking at it. One is in terms of having a "system" that answers such questions. The other is to trust in human nature. Left to their own devices people are generally kind. Individuals are free to form charities and help those without, help them get back onto their feet and do what they have to do to gain whatever resources they need. Or individuals can simply help another person out.

I came across something ages ago (I wish I had a link, but I don't) demonstrating that when a certain town in the UK had all its traffic lights removed, drivers became more considerate and careful, and accidents, well I don't think there were any. Not that it should be necessary to prove because human nature is generally good, but it's an example of the fact that you don't need so many rules. You don't need systems that people have to follow in order to get the best results. The fact that so many charities exist (which are of course created voluntarily) also shows that people generally tend to want to help others. Community spirit isn't something that is created by any system, it exists anyway, and you need to have less rules and less systems in order for that human nature to manifest.

People start charities for tax breaks, and alot of times the money goes to back asswards religeous groups or into the pocket of whoever's organising it... They steal the money to start the charity from their workers.

We have a system that pits everybody against eachother, based on things like race and class. There is no "community spirit," in the worst ghettoes in the U.S. and in the Sweat Shops in China.

Try removing the lights in a mega city, see how that works out. But rules for safety aren't the same as rules for let's say economics. Capitalism is if anything the antithesis of human nature.

[Captain Marvelous]

You'll share your damn cows whether you like it or not, you will take part in worker's democracy or live in the forest

Both scenarios are highly unlikely.

[Ostrinski]

tell that to red guard ;)

[Captain Marvelous]

People start charities for tax breaks, and alot of times the money goes to back asswards religeous groups or into the pocket of whoever's organising it... They steal the money to start the charity from their workers.

We have a system that pits everybody against eachother, based on things like race and class. There is no "community spirit," in the worst ghettoes in the U.S. and in the Sweat Shops in China.

Try removing the lights in a mega city, see how that works out. But rules for safety aren't the same as rules for let's say economics. Capitalism is if anything the antithesis of human nature.

Some people take advantage of the current system for non-belevolent purposes. Remove the current system, and what's left is good human nature. People tend to come together. Both extremes (the current system and communism) underestimate or ignore that fact.

[Captain Marvelous]

tell that to red guard ;)

Ok.

[Ostrinski]

But in all seriousness, you are a capitalist if you believe in private property.

[Blake's Baby]

No that's not correct. If I have a cow, and you want me to share it with you, I'm not forced to refuse, and I'm not forced to share. I'm not forced, period. And I'm also not prevented, period.

A system in which I would be forced not to share is not what I'm talking about at all. Such a system would be even more extreme than the current one. I'm talking about not being forced to make any decision that I don't want to make, whatever that may be.

No that's not correct. It forces me not to share, because you 'own' a cow. If I want a leg of 'your' cow and you don't want to give it to me it forces me not to share the cow with you.

Or I take it anyway, wich would be fair, but then in what sense do you 'have a cow' then?

So you're an extremist because your system forces me not to share 'your' cow.

[roy]

OK, so you want to let altruism manifest naturally? Cool, but we live in a society where you can only be so altruistic before you go broke. Basically, capitalism is fucked and we want to destroy it to make way for a system where the "good nature" of people that you have expressed a fondness for will flourish due to the annihilation of class society, the monetary system, the need to walk all over each other, etc. You'd have to be a massive dick not share in a society wherein the means of production are collectively owned.

[Doflamingo]

If I had a cow I'd name it Charles and feed it LSD so I could have psychedelic milk.

[Geiseric]

If I had a cow I'd name it Charles and feed it LSD so I could have psychedelic milk.

/thread

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I'm standing up for the mooletariat.

[Caj]

Let the humans tremble at a cowmunistic revolution. The mooletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a farm to win. Cows of the world UNITE! :marx:

[Geiseric]

Let the humans tremble at a cowmunistic revolution. The mooletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a farm to win. Cows of the world UNITE! :marx:

You really thought that one out. Kudos.

[Blake's Baby]

Damn, and here I was thinking we'd actually be able to make one libertario-minarchic-capitalist see that his so-called 'free' system actually means the systematic coercion of all non-property owners... but now I guess we won't.

[Captain Marvelous]

No that's not correct. It forces me not to share, because you 'own' a cow. If I want a leg of 'your' cow and you don't want to give it to me it forces me not to share the cow with you.

Or I take it anyway, wich would be fair, but then in what sense do you 'have a cow' then?

So you're an extremist because your system forces me not to share 'your' cow.

First you said that it forces me not to share, and now you're changing that to you being forced not to share. But it doesn't force you not to share. You are free to share your cow if you wish. You're also free not to. The question is, do you have a cow to share? If you do, good. If you don't, then get a cow, or ask someone to share theirs with you and see what they say. Or offer someone something in exchange for a share of their cow. Use your initiative.

Don't forget that you are descended from a long line of people who didn't need communism, who didn't need to be forced to share anything. But they did share, and they survived. And now here you are. People need to be treated like mature adults, rather than helpless children who can't gain anything for themselves and so need others to give them handouts.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Keep your fucking cow. We don't need your individual cow. You can have your one or two cows. Teach them to play fetch, or slaughter them and have a feast. Nobody cares.

Unless you own thousands of cows and thus have control over dairy/beef production. While you keep workers who tend to the cows as wage slaves, then your cows belong to the workers that tend to them, not you.


You people are being trolled.

[Captain Marvelous]

Keep your fucking cow. We don't need your individual cow. You can have your one or two cows. Teach them to play fetch, or slaughter them and have a feast. Nobody cares.

Unless you own thousands of cows and thus have control over dairy/beef production. While you keep workers who tend to the cows as wage slaves, then your cows belong to the workers that tend to them, not you.


You people are being trolled.

No one said I would treat my workers as wage slaves. You're automatically making that assumption.

[Manic Impressive]

So when someone says that communism and fascism are the same, what could possibly make them think that? What are the reasons why someone would consider them to be either the same or similar?
Why don't you read some Mussolini?
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mussolini/works/fascism.htm
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/reading/germany/mussolini.htm

There are similarities between some people who have called themselves communists and fascists. For instance Bordiga's take on democracy could be viewed as similar to that of Mussolini's. But the end which justify their means are different. For Mussolini it's the strength of the state whereas for Bordiga it's the party which he sees as the class.
To libertarians I'm sure that the state interference in capitalism of the fascists resembles the completely state run capitalism of the Leninists.

[Blake's Baby]

First you said that it forces me not to share, and now you're changing that to you being forced not to share. But it doesn't force you not to share...

Except, you know, I didn't change what I was saying, I think you just didn't read it:


...
How your system works:

You have a cow, I want to share it, you don't.

Therefore it forces me not to share...

So, whether you want to share 'your' cow or not, if I want to share 'your' cow, and you don't, it forces me not to share. Which is compulsion. And, not incidently, the entire problem with 'property' as a concept.





... You are free to share your cow if you wish. You're also free not to. The question is, do you have a cow to share? If you do, good. If you don't, then get a cow, or ask someone to share theirs with you and see what they say. Or offer someone something in exchange for a share of their cow. Use your initiative...

Already done that, we've all banded together to stop you monoplising the cows. The cows have been collectivised. Happy?



...Don't forget that you are descended from a long line of people who didn't need communism, who didn't need to be forced to share anything. But they did share, and they survived. And now here you are...

Not sussed that communism existed for 2.6 million years, then, and class society is only about 7,000 years old?



... People need to be treated like mature adults, rather than helpless children who can't gain anything for themselves and so need others to give them handouts.

You just keep up with that 'undeserving poor, anyone can make it if they try hard' attitude and you never know, next year they might make you chief of the cheerleading squad, sparky!

[Captain Marvelous]

...

[Blake's Baby]

...

Well, that is an eloquent expression of something or other I'm sure.

[danyboy27]

Analogy that are too simplistic tend to miss the point, economical and political system are much more complicated to demonstrate and would require more variable in your analogy.

[Captain Marvelous]

If people wish to pool their resources and labour together, that's actually not a bad idea. What is a bad idea is forcing everyone to do it. And that's why you will never see a communist revolution or whatever you call it, whatever it is that you're all waiting for. It just won't ever happen. People naturally resent being told to share what they've earned. If you were in the wild and you had to depend on your own wits to survive, would you sit around and wait for someone to share their gains with? You'd probably starve. It's best for people to just do their own thing, and if they want to share they'll do so, and if they don't, they won't. A bit of backbone and initiative is what's needed, not trying to force everyone to hand over their stuff. The communist dream is just that, a dream. And a waste of time. Your time would be far better spent setting up voluntary schemes where people can pool their resources and labour together. It would probably do very well. It might even serve as an example to others, and they might set up something similar. And in the meantime, those who don't wish to participate will continue doing what they're doing.

[Revolution starts with U]

Children don't like to share either. We make them and yet they turn out as functioning adults.

Survey says!... Epic idealist fail!

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I'm not in favour of capitalism. Communism hold people back by not letting their good nature manifest naturally. It forces people to share, regardless of whether they want to or not. You can't force good nature out of people, it's already there. Left to its own devices it has more potential than within any system that forces it to come out. It shouldn't be restrained but likewise it shouldn't be forced. I'll grant you this much, and that is that it's better to force it than restrain it, but both are extremes, and both ignore the fact that by itself, there's more potential. People conduct themselves best when they have a personal incentive. They are more likely to go that extra mile and therefore yield better results. And also, people appreciate it when someone is doing something out of kindness. And that creates even more community spirit / reciprocation. Good human nature runs itself. And community spirit can grow exponentially.

There are many things that constitute incentive. Humans are social animals and we are wired to operate in groups, reasonably cooperatively. Under communism, the incentives would not be monetary -- every one would have ample material wealth. But lots of people produce all kinds of great things without being concerned about remuneration. Creativity, productivity, these are also things that we are probably wired for. The idea of coercion has little place in a communist society -- there just would not be any great need for it (of course, there will always be some sociopaths and such from which society will need to protect itself, but this is a miniscule fraction of humanity).

As for fascists, no platform for and no discussion with. What would you discuss? Racism and genocide, for or against?

[Blake's Baby]

If people wish to pool their resources and labour together, that's actually not a bad idea. What is a bad idea is forcing everyone to do it. And that's why you will never see a communist revolution or whatever you call it, whatever it is that you're all waiting for. It just won't ever happen. People naturally resent being told to share what they've earned...

You just don't get it do you?

What people object to is working for other people (a boss). If we're working for ourselves and our own communities and the whole human race, why would we object to that?


... If you were in the wild and you had to depend on your own wits to survive, would you sit around and wait for someone to share their gains with? You'd probably starve. It's best for people to just do their own thing, and if they want to share they'll do so, and if they don't, they won't. A bit of backbone and initiative is what's needed, not trying to force everyone to hand over their stuff...

Actually, in the wild, people co-operate or die. 'Individualism' as you describe it is only a viable philosophy in a world where you can go and buy shit. In the wild you can't, and if you don't get together in a tribe, you're fucked mate. First time you go to sleep a pack of wolves is gonna have you. What, you built a one-man-stockade to keep them out? Not on that first day when you (just you) were hunting for food (for one) and cutting enough firewood to make a fire (for one) and went and got enough water (for one). We, all 7 billion of us, sorted all that out amongst ourselves. You've been out-socialised.



... The communist dream is just that, a dream. And a waste of time...

Best fuck off and stop wasting your time then.


.. Your time would be far better spent setting up voluntary schemes where people can pool their resources and labour together. It would probably do very well. It might even serve as an example to others, and they might set up something similar. And in the meantime, those who don't wish to participate will continue doing what they're doing.

Yeah. Capitalism. You'll continue to support the forcible expropriationn of social wealth and the enrichment of the few on the backs of the many.

The ruling class, the bourgeoisie, the boss class, the exploiters, are pissing themselves in fear at the power of the working class right now. Workers all over Europe are proving what you say wrong - it's the working class that actually produces the very 'stuff' that you're so concerned out. That 'stuff' is then taken away by the bosses and the working class whose labour actually produces the stuff get a pittance in return. Forcible expropriation - 'taking away people's stuff' - is exactly what you're supporting. You're cheerleading a system of organised robbery.

[Captain Marvelous]

You just don't get it do you?

What people object to is working for other people (a boss). If we're working for ourselves and our own communities and the whole human race, why would we object to that?



Actually, in the wild, people co-operate or die. 'Individualism' as you describe it is only a viable philosophy in a world where you can go and buy shit. In the wild you can't, and if you don't get together in a tribe, you're fucked mate. First time you go to sleep a pack of wolves is gonna have you. What, you built a one-man-stockade to keep them out? Not on that first day when you (just you) were hunting for food (for one) and cutting enough firewood to make a fire (for one) and went and got enough water (for one). We, all 7 billion of us, sorted all that out amongst ourselves. You've been out-socialised.




Best fuck off and stop wasting your time then.



Yeah. Capitalism. You'll continue to support the forcible expropriationn of social wealth and the enrichment of the few on the backs of the many.

The ruling class, the bourgeoisie, the boss class, the exploiters, are pissing themselves in fear at the power of the working class right now. Workers all over Europe are proving what you say wrong - it's the working class that actually produces the very 'stuff' that you're so concerned out. That 'stuff' is then taken away by the bosses and the working class whose labour actually produces the stuff get a pittance in return. Forcible expropriation - 'taking away people's stuff' - is exactly what you're supporting. You're cheerleading a system of organised robbery.

You need to calm down, buddy. I'm just telling you what lots of people would tell you. Communism will never catch on because people (not just me) don't agree with it. It's as simple as that. You should listen to what people tell you because then you'll know whether your ideas are worth bothering with or not. In this case it's the latter. You will forever find yourself in an uphill struggle and as long as you don't listen to what people tell you, it will never dawn on you that your ideas simply aren't welcome, they will never become popular. You're welcome to try but you can't convince me and you can't convince a lot of other people either. So, rather than get angry when someone gives their opinion, I suggest you do the mature thing and actually listen. You might, after all, god forbid, be wrong.

[Luís Henrique]

What goes?

In communism, 'you' don't have two cows. Because in order to own those cows, you dispossessed everyone else. Why should you have two cows?

In capitalism, you don't have two cows. Either you have 2,000 cows, or you are pulled out of competition, due to problems of scale.

In feudalism, you don't have two cows. They actually belong to your master. His cows are counted in the hundreds.

In slavery, you don't have two cows. Both you and cows are the property of someone else, who usually has scores of cows. And slaves.

In agricultural primitive societies, you don't have two cows. All the twenty some cows are the property of the community.

In hunter-gatherer societies, nobody owns cows. You have to hunt them down if you want meat.

Seriously, there has never been any society of any kind that was based on the property of a few cows. Being part of the ruling class always meant owning much more property than a few cows. Being part of the working class always meant having no property at all. In any society, owners of two cows have always been the exception, not the rule.

Luís Henrique

[Red Rabbit]

My parents used to have 2 cows. And a horse.

Also, when I was little, I used to think fascists were people who dictated what you could wear.

[Blake's Baby]

You need to calm down, buddy. I'm just telling you what lots of people would tell you...

So, being totally unoriginal and just saying what ever other people say? You must feel very special in your 'individuality' that is an identikit version of every body else's.



Communism will never catch on because people (not just me) don't agree with it. It's as simple as that...

You're completely right, no idea has ever started unpopular and changed society, can't think of a single one, that's why we're all still livving in the old stone age wearing skins.


... You should listen to what people tell you because then you'll know whether your ideas are worth bothering with or not. In this case it's the latter...

Because not only do you think you should have both the world's cows, you think you have the right to decide what the rest of the world is going to believe? Grow the fuck up.


You will forever find yourself in an uphill struggle and as long as you don't listen to what people tell you, it will never dawn on you that your ideas simply aren't welcome, they will never become popular. You're welcome to try but you can't convince me and you can't convince a lot of other people either. So, rather than get angry when someone gives their opinion, I suggest you do the mature thing and actually listen. You might, after all, god forbid, be wrong.

No shit? You know I never thought of that. Hmmm, let's see... a world where a small minority exploits the majority and fucks the planet, or a world where people work together and share the fruits of their labours? Hmm, decisions decisions...

[Captain Marvelous]

So, being totally unoriginal and just saying what ever other people say? You must feel very special in your 'individuality' that is an identikit version of every body else's.




You're completely right, no idea has ever started unpopular and changed society, can't think of a single one, that's why we're all still livving in the old stone age wearing skins.



Because not only do you think you should have both the world's cows, you think you have the right to decide what the rest of the world is going to believe? Grow the fuck up.



No shit? You know I never thought of that. Hmmm, let's see... a world where a small minority exploits the majority and fucks the planet, or a world where people work together and share the fruits of their labours? Hmm, decisions decisions...

The fact that I'm telling you what many others would tell you should serve as an indication that maybe, god forbid, people aren't interested in communism. It's not about originality, it's about taking the hint.

[Blake's Baby]

So you live in a hunter gatherer band, use wooden tools (stone tools, they'll never catch on), grunt instead of using developed language, shit where you drink, worship your mother and whimper in fear of hyenas every night do you? Interesting life you must lead, tell me about it... oh, no wait, you can't.

Guess what? things change. Ideas change. Societies change. what seems perfectly rational at one time - THE SUN GOES ROUND THE EARTH! - seems pretty fucking stupid at another - PROPERTY IS ETERNAL! - and those ideas change.

Let's face it; you want to be in a better position than other people because you're an antisocial asshat, whereas I'm a kind and lovely guy who wants to be friends with everybody; and you're just trying to justify having no friends by pretending being a dick is somehow down to 'human nature' instead of what's really going on, which is that you're a dick. And you're kinda proud of it, pretending that 'everybody else' agrees with you.

Guess what? I asked them, and they agree with me. you're a dick, and you have no friends. So that's why your philosophy is 'people are dicks and having friends isn't as cool as having two cows'.

[Captain Marvelous]

So you live in a hunter gatherer band, use wooden tools (stone tools, they'll never catch on), grunt instead of using developed language, shit where you drink, worship your mother and whimper in fear of hyenas every night do you? Interesting life you must lead, tell me about it... oh, no wait, you can't.

Guess what? things change. Ideas change. Societies change. what seems perfectly rational at one time - THE SUN GOES ROUND THE EARTH! - seems pretty fucking stupid at another - PROPERTY IS ETERNAL! - and those ideas change.

Let's face it; you want to be in a better position than other people because you're an antisocial asshat, whereas I'm a kind and lovely guy who wants to be friends with everybody; and you're just trying to justify having no friends by pretending being a dick is somehow down to 'human nature' instead of what's really going on, which is that you're a dick. And you're kinda proud of it, pretending that 'everybody else' agrees with you.

Guess what? I asked them, and they agree with me. you're a dick, and you have no friends. So that's why your philosophy is 'people are dicks and having friends isn't as cool as having two cows'.

"I'm a kind and lovely guy who wants to be friends with everybody"

Sure you are, buddy, sure you are...

"you're an antisocial asshat"

"you're a dick"

"you're a dick" (you said that twice)

Your dream will never come true. You're living in a fantasy world which will never materialise. Very very few people share your dream. The vast majority of people don't agree with you. Get used to it. Go and find some likeminded people and create your own little commune, where you can share your resources and labour to your hearts content, instead of wasting your time thinking you can ever convince or force the rest of us to live like you want us to live. And good luck to you, sharing is a great idea, but forcing people to share isn't. I believe in the freedom to share and the freedom not to share. Many agree with me. You're vastly outnumbered, so just live with it.

[ВАЛТЕР]

No one said I would treat my workers as wage slaves. You're automatically making that assumption.

They immediately become wage slaves when they become "your" workers. Or anybody's workers for that matter.

[#FF0000]

The fact that I'm telling you what many others would tell you should serve as an indication that maybe, god forbid, people aren't interested in communism. It's not about originality, it's about taking the hint.

you mean to say that our ideas are unpopular

what a stunning observation that no one here has noticed before.

that is definitely worth our time thank you so much.

[gorillafuck]

keep in mind I haven't read this whole thread, but...

because this forum is for debating, and fascist arguments always revolve around eugenics and racial supremacy. this is a far left forum, but a discussion with a libertarian or a social democrat or whoever can still be intellectually stimulating whereas a debate with someone who just uses arguments based on theories about the supremacy of the white race is not. also, because revleft as a whole is meant to be a safe place, we do not allow bigots to post, and non-socialists can obviously be non-bigoted whereas fascists are necessarily bigoted.

[Captain Marvelous]

They immediately become wage slaves when they become "your" workers. Or anybody's workers for that matter.

What's wrong with me employing people to do a job that I need doing and paying them for it? For example, if I want someone to help me build something, or work in my shop, or clean my house or do some gardening. There are many ways to pay people, both in terms of what you pay the with (money, stuff) and in terms of the basis on which you pay them (ie hourly rate, daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, or per job).

In other words, what's wrong with two people voluntarily entering into an agreement in which each person gives the other something that they want or need?

[#FF0000]

In other words, what's wrong with two people voluntarily entering into an agreement in which each person gives the other something that they want or need?

Ain't nothing wrong with mutual aid.

Except that ain't what we have under capitalism. In capitalism we have an underclass of people who have no choice but to submit to wage labor.

[gorillafuck]

What's wrong with me employing people to do a job that I need doing and paying them for it? For example, if I want someone to help me build something, or work in my shop, or clean my house or do some gardening. There are many ways to pay people, both in terms of what you pay the with (money, stuff) and in terms of the basis on which you pay them (ie hourly rate, daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, or per job).

In other words, what's wrong with two people voluntarily entering into an agreement in which each person gives the other something that they want or need?I'd say nothing. I do stuff for money and I pay people for stuff I need or want. but that's not the big picture. the issue is the division of class in the world, in which a small portion of the population owns the property and the working class has no option but to work for the ruling class.

I don't want to get pulled into an OI debate right now, though.

[Blake's Baby]

"I'm a kind and lovely guy who wants to be friends with everybody"

Sure you are, buddy, sure you are...

"you're an antisocial asshat"

"you're a dick"

"you're a dick" (you said that twice)...

Yeah, you're twice the dick I thought you were at first.



...
Your dream will never come true. You're living in a fantasy world which will never materialise. Very very few people share your dream. The vast majority of people don't agree with you. Get used to it. Go and find some likeminded people and create your own little commune, where you can share your resources and labour to your hearts content, instead of wasting your time thinking you can ever convince or force the rest of us to live like you want us to live. And good luck to you, sharing is a great idea, but forcing people to share isn't. I believe in the freedom to share and the freedom not to share. Many agree with me. You're vastly outnumbered, so just live with it.

I don't recall coming over to your website to tell you your political philosophy was stupid and you were wasting your time... you know why? Because I get enough stupid every day of my life in the system that you claimto dislike but are supporting in every post you make. In the realm of ideas at least, this is our little commune. RevLeft is a forum for Revolutionary Leftists. If you want to say you believe in 'live and let live' then why are you here to tell us we're wrong?

I believe that your 'freedom not to share' is a lie; it is the freedom to expropriate, it is sanctioned theft, and as a result I'll oppose it, and you, and all the other hypocritical justifiers of expropriation.

Maybe you're right. Maybe none of us alive will ever see communism. But the message that there can be a better way of living than this isn't going to die because a few communists who frequent a forum die or give up. Anyway, we're not the quitting kind. You can be bought with a couple of cows, sure, you're incapable of holdinga thought that isn't also held by a majority of other people, but not everyone is much of a pushover as you are. we've seen the shipwreck of our project in the 20th century and let's face it, compared to the horrors of Stalinism, you saying 'you're never going to be popular you know' is not really so much of a disincentive.

[#FF0000]

i am almost certain none of us will ever see communism and i think it's more likely that the world will end before it becomes a reality

buuuut that doesn't really invalidate marxism. it's still, as far as I can tell, pretty much completely on-point.

[Captain Marvelous]

#FF and zeekloid...

I'm not talking about capitalism or a class system. I'm just saying that mutual aid / transactions are natural, beneficial, and helps build community spirit. It doesn't have to involve classes at all, just people entering into agreements, whether formally or officially. I notice that whenever communism is criticised here, or when alternatives are suggested, it always goes back to a choice between capitalism, communism, fascism, and some other ism.

With all respect, do you not realise that your thinking is quite narrow? I don't look at the present system and then go looking for an existing alternative possibility. I start with a blank page. If I'm not in favour of communism, it doesn't mean I'm in favour of anything else necessarily. I believe in doing whatever works. Communism has its good point, but there are lots of other ideas that can be combined with other ideas. I don't take every concept and necessarily try to go all the way to the extremes with it, I just think about what will work in any given situation. You can have mutually beneficial agreements / barter without a class system. I think it's a great idea if individuals wanbt to set up schemes where folks can pool their stuff together and then hand them out as necessaity determines. That's good. I'd probably even join such a sheme. Have any of you heard of L.E.T.S. (Local Trade Exchange Sceheme)? That's a great example of initiative at work. But I also like the fact that it's not compulsory.

The problem sometimes is when someone looks at something that doesn't work, and then instead of starting with a blank page, from scratch, and then taking what works from different systems as well as thinking up new things, and maybe even taking ideas from the current system if there are any that have redeeming aspects, they try to do the exact opposite of the current system in every way, as if that's the answer.

[#FF0000]

words

you're probs just kinda bad at communicating actually since everything i read just sorta sounded like 'well hey class and wage labor isn't htat bad right'

but w/e

you ever heard of mutualism, dogg?

[Captain Marvelous]

Yeah, you're twice the dick I thought you were at first.




I don't recall coming over to your website to tell you your political philosophy was stupid and you were wasting your time... you know why? Because I get enough stupid every day of my life in the system that you claimto dislike but are supporting in every post you make. In the realm of ideas at least, this is our little commune. RevLeft is a forum for Revolutionary Leftists. If you want to say you believe in 'live and let live' then why are you here to tell us we're wrong?

I believe that your 'freedom not to share' is a lie; it is the freedom to expropriate, it is sanctioned theft, and as a result I'll oppose it, and you, and all the other hypocritical justifiers of expropriation.

Maybe you're right. Maybe none of us alive will ever see communism. But the message that there can be a better way of living than this isn't going to die because a few communists who frequent a forum die or give up. Anyway, we're not the quitting kind. You can be bought with a couple of cows, sure, you're incapable of holdinga thought that isn't also held by a majority of other people, but not everyone is much of a pushover as you are. we've seen the shipwreck of our project in the 20th century and let's face it, compared to the horrors of Stalinism, you saying 'you're never going to be popular you know' is not really so much of a disincentive.

Go away. Learn how to interact with humans.

[Captain Marvelous]

you're probs just kinda bad at communicating actually since everything i read just sorta sounded like 'well hey class and wage labor isn't htat bad right'

but w/e

you ever heard of mutualism, dogg?

No, homey, tell me all about it.

[Ostrinski]

@Captain Marvelous if you support private property you are a capitalist whether you like the word or not.

[Captain Marvelous]

@Captain Marvelous if you support private property you are a capitalist whether you like the word or not.

List all the things that capitalism stands for and I'll tell you which ones I agree with and which ones I don't. I may agree with them all, I may agree with none, I may agree with half.

[#FF0000]

No, homey, tell me all about it.

i dont think i could do it justice so actually it might be a good idea to puruse the wikipedia on it and look into the works of jp proudhon.

It's an anti-capitalist sorta-kinda market socialist ideology thing.

[Ostrinski]

List all the things that capitalism stands for and I'll tell you which ones I agree with and which ones I don't. I may agree with them all, I may agree with none, I may agree with half.Capitalism stands for the capitalist mode of production (wage labor, capital accumulation, exchange oriented production [commodity production], etc). Everything else is just social fallout

[Captain Marvelous]

Capitalism stands for the capitalist mode of production (wage labor, capital accumulation, exchange oriented production [commodity production], etc). Everything else is just social fallout

I'd say that a system which encompassed the best of capitalism, and the best of communism, and the best of anything else, that would be a good system. Certain things can be made compulsory and certain things can be voluntary. Certain things can be taken care of by the "state" and others can be taken care of by individuals or groups. I'm a believer in freedom and choice. I think it's prefectly possible for many systems (I mean the best aspects) to exist side by side. I don't see any need to necessarily take something to extremes. Just do whatever works best in each situation.

[Ostrinski]

Except that economic systems don't exist in degrees, the mode of production is the root of all society.

[Captain Marvelous]

Except that economic systems don't exist in degrees, the mode of production is the root of all society.

What makes you think that economic systems don't exist in degrees? Can you elaborate / illustrate?

[gorillafuck]

#FF and zeekloid...

I'm not talking about capitalism or a class system. I'm just saying that mutual aid / transactions are natural, beneficial, and helps build community spirit. It doesn't have to involve classes at all, just people entering into agreements, whether formally or officially. I notice that whenever communism is criticised here, or when alternatives are suggested, it always goes back to a choice between capitalism, communism, fascism, and some other ism.I don't understand your point then. why did you ask why transactions irrelevant to the overall economic system are bad if you're not talking about capitalism?:confused:

you can't have a world without ism's because everything is a system.


With all respect, do you not realise that your thinking is quite narrow? I don't look at the present system and then go looking for an existing alternative possibility. I start with a blank page. If I'm not in favour of communism, it doesn't mean I'm in favour of anything else necessarily. I believe in doing whatever works. Communism has its good point, but there are lots of other ideas that can be combined with other ideas. I don't take every concept and necessarily try to go all the way to the extremes with it, I just think about what will work in any given situation. You can have mutually beneficial agreements / barter without a class system.you can't have capitalism without a class system, though. capitalism requires a ruling class. whether or not people make agreements to do stuff for eachother is not relevant.


I think it's a great idea if individuals wanbt to set up schemes where folks can pool their stuff together and then hand them out as necessaity determines. That's good. I'd probably even join such a sheme. Have any of you heard of L.E.T.S. (Local Trade Exchange Sceheme)? That's a great example of initiative at work. But I also like the fact that it's not compulsory.Sadly, the world economic system is compulsory regardless of whether it is soviet style communism or the most free market oriented capitalism. because you have to work for whatever is going on, or you are severely impoverished, regardless of whether or not the cops or the state are making you do it.

[Captain Marvelous]

I don't understand your point then. why did you ask why transactions irrelevant to the overall economic system are bad if you're not talking about capitalism?:confused:

you can't have a world without ism's because everything is a system.

you can't have capitalism without a class system, though. capitalism requires a ruling class. whether or not people make agreements to do stuff for eachother is not relevant.

Sadly, the world economic system is compulsory regardless of whether it is soviet style communism or the most free market oriented capitalism. because you have to work for whatever is going on, or you are severely impoverished, regardless of whether or not the cops or the state are making you do it.

I think voluntary transactions can occur without a ruling class. It's obvious. Don't you think that's possible? Do you have something I might want? Maybe I have something you want. We're equals, we can swap. No ruling class. In fact, if you want to talk about ruling classes, I think that under a communist system, all the people would be ruled by a "state" (or whataver you want to call it) that would force them to behave in a certain way. Hey I'm not saying that pooling your labour and resources isn't a bad idea. I've said it before, it's a great idea. But I resent a system that rules that I must do that. I prefer a system in which the emphasis is on what choices you have, what you are free to do, not one that tells me what I must do. A system that inherently allows many possibilities. Possibilities such as barter, pooling, and the use of (interest free) money, and the option for communities to create their own currencies.

Different cultures do things in different ways. Many are very good. Some of those ways are suitable to some people, others not so much. I think there should be a system in which there is the possibility for people to create a vast array of ways of doing things. A system that facillitates and opens doors rather than trying to determine how everyone must do things. Then, there is choice. Peoeople can pick and choose how to go about their business, and learn about how others go about things. It's much more interesting and fulfilling.

[Ostrinski]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production

[gorillafuck]

I think voluntary transactions can occur without a ruling class. It's obvious. Don't you think that's possible? Do you have something I might want? Maybe I have something you want. We're equals, we can swap. No ruling class.yeah but that is not what determines the economic system because capitalism is not made up of people just trading stuff. that stuff needs to be produced on a mass scale, and that requires certain people and companies to own a lot of property and makes it necessary to have a class of workers to employ on that property. it is a system of a class of private property owners who employ workers and profit off of that.

[hatzel]

you ever heard of mutualism, dogg?


No, homey, tell me all about it.

Some guy wrote a book about it (http://www.panarchy.org/swartz/mutualism.index.html).

[Blake's Baby]

What makes you think that economic systems don't exist in degrees? Can you elaborate / illustrate?

Property does not exist in degrees. Either there is private property or there is not private property. There isn't 'a bit' private property.

You can't have something that's 'a bit' capitalism. You can have capitalist relations existing in another system (another class system with expropriated labour that is) but you can't have capitalism without a class system, because you can't have capitalism without private property and as classes are the result of property relations, you can't have private property without a class system.

So, as socialism is classless and propertyless, you can't have a system that is both. It cannot be both classless and a class system, both propertyless and having private property. There is no 'middle way'. Either you believe in property and a class system, or you believe in no-property and no-class system. It's a binary opposition that you have to chose one side or other. So 'a bit of both' doesn't wash, unless you can convince us that you've managed to find some way of reconciling no property with property.

[Captain Marvelous]

yeah but that is not what determines the economic system because capitalism is not made up of people just trading stuff. that stuff needs to be produced on a mass scale, and that requires certain people and companies to own a lot of property and makes it necessary to have a class of workers to employ on that property. it is a system of a class of private property owners who employ workers and profit off of that.

Ok. If we're going to talk about the "big" things, things that if it's done wrong things fall apart, who should control it? Depends. It depends on what it is, the implications of what would happen if it goes wrong in the hands of various parties, who is considered best for the job, all sorts of factors. I'm sure a sensible society can make those decisions on a case by case basis. It doesn't have to be the "state", it doesn't have to be the people, it can be whoever is best depending on the situation. Things don't have to always be done in a uniform manner.

[gorillafuck]

Ok. If we're going to talk about the "big" things, things that if it's done wrong things fall apart, who should control it? Depends. It depends on what it is, the implications of what would happen if it goes wrong in the hands of various parties, who is considered best for the job, all sorts of factors. I'm sure a sensible society can make those decisions on a case by case basis. It doesn't have to be the "state", it doesn't have to be the people, it can be whoever is best depending on the situation. Things don't have to always be done in a uniform manner.I don't understand what you're saying. we're talking about the class character of the economic system, and I don't quite understand what you're saying. elaborate?


Property does not exist in degrees. Either there is private property or there is not private property. There isn't 'a bit' private property.uh, that's a dangerous thing to say. there is a mix of private and public property in society, that's impossible to deny.

[Blake's Baby]

...

uh, that's a dangerous thing to say. there is a mix of private and public property in society, that's impossible to deny.

I think the distinction is not between 'private' and 'public' but between 'property' and 'not property'. I don't know what 'public' property means in a class system, because 'the state' is an organ of class rule and therefore 'public' (state, municipal) property is just another form of private property.

[gorillafuck]

yeah, but that sort of thing should probably be explained if you say that all property is private to a non-socialist during a discussion like this. or else it's like when someone says that the USSR is "state capitalist" to someone who doesn't even know how regular capitalism functions, and you end up just sounding like you're saying bizarre shit.

[Blake's Baby]

I suppose. I'll try harder not to sound crazy.

It is 2am though, maybe I should go to bed instead.