Noob questions

[humanist]

Hi there, I'm not sure to post this so I will post it here I guess. I notice you have many anarchists here and this is how I found the forum. I have always had a basic attraction to anarchy. I think the idea of questioning the legitimacy of any authority is a good idea. But basically I came to understand that there is a difference between anarchy as an ideal (the absence of authority ) and freedom. Before civilization, we had anarchy - the power structures we have in place now are social contracts agreed to because they are better than the state of affairs under anarchy in the past. Therefore I have to begrudge that a system is preferable to anarchy, at least until such time as humans are truly capable of living in complete freedom without ruining the environment and doing violence to each other. So this is why I'm interested in communism. But there are some things I'm not sure on yet. How do you stop markets, in a communist system? Like I understand that you can abolish trade regulations, even currencies and governments. But won't people just trade under their own improvised currencies? Like you looks at a situation like a prison, where there is no currency, and money had diminished use because you can't buy anything anyway, food is served, beds are provided, but there is still a flourishing market based on cigarettes as a currency or anything else that has value. If you ban markets, won't trading just move underground, and be even worse because of it's total lack of regulation? Also, how does democracy fit in with communism? I know communists say that communism is 100% democracy, but does that mean a non-communist party is allowed to stand for election? What happens if they win? Or do you have faith that people will be perfectly satisfied with ruling communists parties in a communist system? And what happens with personal property in a communist system? I can support factories and such being communally owned, but what about houses, and cars etc? Are we all going to have the exact same value of house and car, or is there allowed to be differences? Sorry if these questions all sound really naive. As I said, I don't really know much about this stuff. But I am a major supporter of equality and want to be an activist for it :)

[Alexzim]

Before civilization, we had anarchy - the power structures we have in place now are social contracts agreed to because they are better than the state of affairs under anarchy in the past.

Can you identify this anarchic society? most anarchists would likely disagree with you that that's what they want. we have a specific name for people who want to move back to the way things used to be, we call the primitivists.


complete freedom

could you define that for me?


How do you stop markets, in a communist system? won't people just trade under their own improvised currencies?

Why would they? they just got rid of them.


And what happens with personal property in a communist system? I can support factories and such being communally owned, but what about houses, and cars etc?

Communists differentiate between 'property' and 'possession'. things you use (like your car, house, toothbrush, for example) are your 'possessions' which are perfectly acceptable in a communist society,we are against property such as factory's, warehouses of goods, etc

[roy]

Most of human existence has been spent absent class, state and money. These are all relatively recent phenomena. Current society has not manifested as per the will of the people: it is the result of a long history of ruling class oppression. Humans can live in any kind of society, really. 'Human nature' is non-existent. We don't have freedom and we are ruining the evironment and doing violence to each other at unprecendented rates, such is the barbarism of capitalism. Within a communist society, no one would have any incentive to create improvised currencies. Everything would be available for free. If people wish to trade personal items, that's fine. Black markets, however, would be totally obsolete. As of now, however, they are a huge problem.

I think your question about democracy stems from a misunderstanding. Communism would not take the form of parties representing different sections of the bourgeoisie as they do now and running for office. This is not democracy. In a communist society, people would govern themselves and the means of production would be collectively owned. As for your question about houses and such, seeing as though everyone would have access to transportation, shelter, etc. there would be no reason for people to go about terrorising people, stealing their belongings, etc. Everyone would draw from the same pool of resources and have an equal share in decision-making power. Crime and other negative phenomena that are so prevalent in capitalist society would largely become a thing of the past.

I hope this helps. :)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

How do you stop markets, in a communist system? Like I understand that you can abolish trade regulations, even currencies and governments. But won't people just trade under their own improvised currencies?

Communism is about the working class liberating themselves through revolution that gradually represents a society that coincides with their interests. This is to say monetary currencies are abolished not through state force but because they are no longer needed; when everyone already has access to what they need for a healthy life money would serve no interest.



Like you looks at a situation like a prison, where there is no currency, and money had diminished use because you can't buy anything anyway, food is served, beds are provided, but there is still a flourishing market based on cigarettes as a currency or anything else that has value.

The reason such a trade flows in prisons is because those items are not allowed to the prisoners; the inmates are trading for goods which they are not allowed to have not trading items for money.


Also, how does democracy fit in with communism? I know communists say that communism is 100% democracy, but does that mean a non-communist party is allowed to stand for election?

Depends on what system you are referring to: If you mean under actual communism there would be no elections because there would be no governments or states; the working class controls everything through their own apparatuses.


And what happens with personal property in a communist system? I can support factories and such being communally owned, but what about houses, and cars etc? Are we all going to have the exact same value of house and car, or is there allowed to be differences?

There is a difference between private property and personal property: private property (houses, not sure about cars as use of fossil fuels is something to be weaned off of), is anything that amounts to landownership and building ownership while personal property are things like toothbrushes and books and the sort.

Value is something totally different from ownership.

Under communism you would always have access to transportation and housing. Though asking what it will be like under such a system is hard and sketchy.

[NGNM85]

Hi there, I'm not sure to post this so I will post it here I guess. I notice you have many anarchists here...

I wish we had a few more...


and this is how I found the forum. I have always had a basic attraction to anarchy. I think the idea of questioning the legitimacy of any authority is a good idea.

Yeah. that's the most basic tenet of Anarchism; authority should be, continually, subjeect to a heavy burden of proof as to it's legitimacy. If, or when, it fails to meet this burden, it should be dismantled, or replaced.


But basically I came to understand that there is a difference between anarchy as an ideal (the absence of authority ) and freedom. Before civilization, we had anarchy - the power structures we have in place now are social contracts agreed to because they are better than the state of affairs under anarchy in the past.

Not really. The public doesn't consent to wage-slavery, etc. By all evidence, much of the public absolutely despises the status quo, with good reason.


Therefore I have to begrudge that a system is preferable to anarchy, at least until such time as humans are truly capable of living in complete freedom without ruining the environment and doing violence to each other.

Ok. It appears you’re suffering from a relatively common misconception about Anarchism. Anarchism is not categorically opposed to organization, or even authority. Anarchism is opposed to authoritarianism. Anarchism is not opposed to 'government', (being a broad term encompassing everything from an Anarchosyndicalist federation, to brutal police states) it is opposed to, among other things, Nation-States, which are merely a particular form of government.



So this is why I'm interested in communism. But there are some things I'm not sure on yet. How do you stop markets, in a communist system? Like I understand that you can abolish trade regulations, even currencies and governments. But won't people just trade under their own improvised currencies? Like you looks at a situation like a prison, where there is no currency, and money had diminished use because you can't buy anything anyway, food is served, beds are provided, but there is still a flourishing market based on cigarettes as a currency or anything else that has value. If you ban markets, won't trading just move underground, and be even worse because of it's total lack of regulation? Also, how does democracy fit in with communism? I know communists say that communism is 100% democracy, but does that mean a non-communist party is allowed to stand for election? What happens if they win? Or do you have faith that people will be perfectly satisfied with ruling communists parties in a communist system? And what happens with personal property in a communist system? I can support factories and such being communally owned, but what about houses, and cars etc? Are we all going to have the exact same value of house and car, or is there allowed to be differences? Sorry if these questions all sound really naive. As I said, I don't really know much about this stuff. But I am a major supporter of equality and want to be an activist for it

First; see above.

Second; it’s important to note that ;’communism’ has three primary definitions, and to be able to distinguish between them. ‘Communism’ (or ‘communism’) may refer to;

A: A stateless, classless egalitarian society.
B: Any Radical Leftist ideology that seeks to establish such a society.
C: The collection of police states that comprised the ‘Communist Bloc’, during the cold war, this is usually signified with a capital ‘c.’

Third; there is no universal consensus on what a more-or-less ‘fully realized’ Libertarian Socialist society would look like. There are some models. Parecon, and Parpolity, developed by professors Michael Albert, and Stephen Shalom, are some of the best, and most detailed.

[humanist]

Most of human existence has been spent absent class, state and money. These are all relatively recent phenomena. Current society has not manifested as per the will of the people: it is the result of a long history of ruling class oppression. Humans can live in any kind of society, really. 'Human nature' is non-existent. We don't have freedom and we are ruining the evironment and doing violence to each other at unprecendented rates, such is the barbarism of capitalism. Within a communist society, no one would have any incentive to create improvised currencies. Everything would be available for free. If people wish to trade personal items, that's fine. Black markets, however, would be totally obsolete. As of now, however, they are a huge problem.

I think your question about democracy stems from a misunderstanding. Communism would not take the form of parties representing different sections of the bourgeoisie as they do now and running for office. This is not democracy. In a communist society, people would govern themselves and the means of production would be collectively owned. As for your question about houses and such, seeing as though everyone would have access to transportation, shelter, etc. there would be no reason for people to go about terrorising people, stealing their belongings, etc. Everyone would draw from the same pool of resources and have an equal share in decision-making power. Crime and other negative phenomena that are so prevalent in capitalist society would largely become a thing of the past.

I hope this helps. :)

Yeah I agree username, cavemen were probably just trying to survive. But you can bet that cavemen also didn't go out and kill an antelope and then bring it back to "share" with all the cavemen that decided to just sit around and wait to be fed. State and money are certainly very late in the game, anthropologically speaking, but money is a way to simplify trade, and trade is a way to simplify distribution of necessities, so money and currencies are essentially positive inventions aren't they? People have lived in social groups since the earliest hominids and probably before that. Whenever people live in social groups they have class distinctions. You can see in our closest concestors chimpanzees that there exists a linear dominance hierarchy and occasional genocidal behavior. Living in social groups pits one group against another. Nation states have just formalized this.

I'm have some trouble grasping your notion of democracy. I know that democracy is extremely limited in scope these days, but elections and voting are vital ingredients to a democracy aren't they? If a system does not have these ingredients, I can't agree that it can be called "democratic".

.

[humanist]

Communism is about the working class liberating themselves through revolution that gradually represents a society that coincides with their interests. This is to say monetary currencies are abolished not through state force but because they are no longer needed; when everyone already has access to what they need for a healthy life money would serve no interest.

This assumes that money and possessions are only for subsistence. But a lot of people collect money and nice cars and houses to signal their alpha status. Like when chimpanzees collect exotic papya fruits - it's not to subside it's to attract the fittest females.



The reason such a trade flows in prisons is because those items are not allowed to the prisoners; the inmates are trading for goods which they are not allowed to have not trading items for money.As above. The it's not so much about items it's about prisoners competing for status in a rationalised way.


Depends on what system you are referring to: If you mean under actual communism there would be no elections because there would be no governments or states; the working class controls everything through their own apparatuses. But doesn't this just mean the working class will become the government?

[LeftAtheist]

But doesn't this just mean the working class will become the government?

In a sense, but not in the sense you seem to be thinking of. It wouldn't be a government administration as we think of one now, only staffed by members of the working class. There would be direct democracy, rather than 'representative' democracy. An easy example to describe how this might work is the concept of a workers' council: Imagine a factory has 1000 workers. Those 1000 workers would collectively own the factory and each of them would have a vote on all matters pertaining to that factory. This would be done, as I said, as a council, rather than a higher authority making decisions.

[roy]

Yeah I agree username, cavemen were probably just trying to survive. But you can bet that cavemen also didn't go out and kill an antelope and then bring it back to "share" with all the cavemen that decided to just sit around and wait to be fed. State and money are certainly very late in the game, anthropologically speaking, but money is a way to simplify trade, and trade is a way to simplify distribution of necessities, so money and currencies are essentially positive inventions aren't they? People have lived in social groups since the earliest hominids and probably before that. Whenever people live in social groups they have class distinctions. You can see in our closest concestors chimpanzees that there exists a linear dominance hierarchy and occasional genocidal behavior. Living in social groups pits one group against another. Nation states have just formalized this.

I'm have some trouble grasping your notion of democracy. I know that democracy is extremely limited in scope these days, but elections and voting are vital ingredients to a democracy aren't they? If a system does not have these ingredients, I can't agree that it can be called "democratic".

.

Of course cavemen were trying to survive, just like we are. No one sits around and waits to be fed in a collective society. I would not say that money is essentially a positive invention. On the contrary, it has had a disastrous effect on the wellbeing of humanity. The reality of the monetary system is that there are haves and have-nots (mostly have-nots). It has given rise to what is today a global capitalist economy wherein the world’s wealth has been monopolised by the bourgeoisie at the expense of everyone else: those who produce their goods and conduct their services. It is dehumanising. A constant war rages around the world for capital, for money, poisoning everything it touches.

I would also dispute that there have always been class distinctions. Class as it exists today is also relatively recent, and classless societies such as that of the Tsimihety people of Madagascar continue to exist. It is an entirely workable system, far more so than the current one, I believe. I won’t make comment on chimpanzees because I don’t count myself as one, but nation-states are nothing more than lines drawn in the sand by patriarchs, by the ruling class. They are socially obsolete and serve only to divide the proletariat. On the democracy question, yes I would say voting on all sorts of matters is vital to democracy. However, democracy is literally the rule of the people. That doesn’t mean the people decide out of two near-identical options who rules them: it means that the people rule themselves by way of workers’ councils or whatever means.

[Revolution starts with U]

Welcome friend! :lol:

I think the idea of questioning the legitimacy of any authority is a good idea. But basically I came to understand that there is a difference between anarchy as an ideal (the absence of authority ) and freedom.
Interesting... I wouldn't exactly disagree tho. I define freedom as the "ability to express oneself (actually I define freedom as "freedom," but that's a whole different discussion)." So there IS a difference between the two, but freedom would necessarily entail the absence of binding heirarchies.

Before civilization, we had anarchy - the power structures we have in place now are social contracts agreed to because they are better than the state of affairs under anarchy in the past.
Agreed. Better for whom tho? As anarchy are we talking pre-neolithic? Primitive communism was a fine system as far as labor/leisure ratio and alienation goes. Unfortunately it lacks in the whole surviving bad climates aspect. Propertarian non-archy (the neolithic revolution) proved better at that, for all its faults. Freedom's great and all... not starving is far better. Than primitive statism developed, and the rest is (literally) history.

Therefore I have to begrudge that a system is preferable to anarchy, at least until such time as humans are truly capable of living in complete freedom without ruining the environment and doing violence to each other.
Anarchy is a system, but point taken. Obviously, as noted above, propertarian nonarchy as a system was preferable to primitive communism in many parts of the world, over a long era of time.

So this is why I'm interested in communism. But there are some things I'm not sure on yet. How do you stop markets, in a communist system? Like I understand that you can abolish trade regulations, even currencies and governments. But won't people just trade under their own improvised currencies?
Markets exist because people claim ownership over scarce resources, or more correctly, the labor power necessary to make "things," in order to make a profit. Correct?
So, if this is true, than to "stop" markets, you stop ownership.
How do you stop ownership? You promote class awareness amongst the property-less (or effectively property-less) masses of society. Their interests are in reasonable (meaning accountable) not for profit possession and use. As long as individuals have the ability to claim title (ie, private property) those individuals will have a material interest in the suppression of the laboerers claim to the full value of his productivity.

Like you looks at a situation like a prison, where there is no currency, and money had diminished use because you can't buy anything anyway, food is served, beds are provided, but there is still a flourishing market based on cigarettes as a currency or anything else that has value.
Are prisoners allowed to come together and engage in productive pursuits? Are they lacking in ownership claimability? I would say the situation of a prison (especially because money isn't actually abolished) is far different than what one would expect in a socialist transition.

If you ban markets, won't trading just move underground, and be even worse because of it's total lack of regulation?
Yes. That's like banning leaves, but allowing roots. The weed is staying.
If you ban ownership tho, markets cannot find ground with which to root. ...It's not really about "banning" ownership tho either, as much as it is about superseding ownership through democratic solidarity.

Also, how does democracy fit in with communism? I know communists say that communism is 100% democracy, but does that mean a non-communist party is allowed to stand for election? What happens if they win? Or do you have faith that people will be perfectly satisfied with ruling communists parties in a communist system?
I'm no fan of "political" parties in the first place. Advocacy parties, for sure. Political parties, in my opinion, are by necessity far too homogenizing.
I'm not saying get rid of parties. That is up to the proletariat to decide. I just think the system will work better without them, at least in the sense we know them.

And what happens with personal property in a communist system? I can support factories and such being communally owned, but what about houses, and cars etc? Are we all going to have the exact same value of house and car, or is there allowed to be differences? Sorry if these questions all sound really naive. As I said, I don't really know much about this stuff. But I am a major supporter of equality and want to be an activist for it :)
Exact same? No... hopefully not. There is nothing worse in the capitalist world than the rows and rows of little boxes on the hillsides made of ticky tacky (except for... you know... everything else about capitalism; forgive my facetiousness). :bored:
Will you have a mansion? No.

My personal preference would be a small and sustainable apt in the city to spend a year or two working/socialising, and large open swaths of reasonably maintained wilderness to spend a year or three on sabbatical. Again, this is up to the proletariat on a macro level to decide.