Reconciling extreme leftist ideas and functionary government

[The Immortal Emrys]

I'm sure someone will disagree with me just to be contrary, but leftist domestic policy seems to require from a given populace, a level of intellectual enlightenment which likely cannot be obtained without use of non-socialist governmental structure for several generations.

So how do modern communist and socialist progressives reconcile their desire for a stateless society, when Liberal policies tend to cause increased government centralization?

To me, the philosophy of Communism has always been much like the word Utopia, perfect, but unobtainable by definition. A glorious goal, but ultimately too pristine to accomplish by flawed human beings.

Without giving a full manifesto, what is the "end game" for many of you?

In several generations, if everything falls into place the way you hope, what is your ideal government structure, discounting the pipe dream of the Utopian hypothetical of a classless, stateless and society.

[Fourth Internationalist]

How exactly is classless society Utopian? Is the necessity of class society a part of the laws of physics or something?

[The Jay]

For one, I do not support any liberal policies and reject Liberalism in its entirety. I know that you are referring to 'liberal' in the sense of american liberal policies which is really a misnomer since both liberal and conservative american views fall into the category of political Liberalism.

Despite acknowledging your use of the word I still disagree. I do not wish to set up a welfare state, but a socialist society. The abolition of the current state of things, the elimination of work as a means to live; rather, turning work into living itself.

This might sound strange to you but the complete break from the reality of now is what I seek, not its simple alteration, not the growth of parliamentary democracy into something more palatable.

[BIXX]

...the elimination of work as a means to live; rather, turning work into living itself.

Why not abolish work?


This might sound strange to you but the complete break from the reality of now is what I seek, not its simple alteration, not the growth of parliamentary democracy into something more palatable.

The allowance of work to exist is still an alteration of our current reality. I mean, that's what leftists want. People to continue doing shit they don't wanna do, in the name of "the greater good". This means that a leftist revolution is essentially glorified reform.

I say we should abolish work. Be ludic, and be self-propulsive.

[G4b3n]

I believe we ought to not only utilize all of the tools of class struggle but we also need to establish our own institutions which need to explicitly and unambiguously state the goals of the working class movement and what we oppose in regards to the current state of things. That is the task at hand right now; as far as revolution is concerned, it can be fun to fantasize about but it is a long way down the road.

As far as what you as an individual leftist can do, there is not much outside of the scope of liberalism that you can directly advocate for in terms of bourgeois state policy. Even though our end goal is a stateless society, do not simplify things into government=bad and less government=good. The rightists who oppose the tool of their own class (i.e the state) almost always (and by almost I mean literally) view freedom as being the freedom to oppress and exploit others and when the bourgeois state hinders this function of freedom to the very small degree in which it does (minimum wage, limited work hours, and other victories won by the working class) the rightists view this as an attack on human liberty in its entirety.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm sure someone will disagree with me just to be contrary,

Well, not just to be contrary but because your argument is a bit of a mess. Sorry to be blunt. But it's a mess of some pretty common arguments and assumptions so it should be addressed.

Well ok, so first off a classless and stateless society is not utopian in any sense because this is how human societies functioned for most of human existence. So the legit question is if it is possible for humans to associate like this today. Those who believe it is are some kind of small-c communist.

They might have all sorts of ideas of what this means and how it would be obtained, but that's a different story. That would also be more like the question of "policies" and so there are many different views of what you call "left-wing policies" so the claim that they inevitably lead to some kind of state centralization over people is kind of an unspecific blob of a criticism. Sorry if that seems like a dodge, but it's just too broad of a generalization to even know how to address it.

The "intellectual sophistication" argument is also broad, but it's a type of argument you hear a lot... Especially from liberals. I don't know what this intellectual quality means to you, but academic knowledge or ideas or intellect seems less important to me than how society is organized. It benifits the ruling class for people to think of politics as something separate and isolated and for regular people to think that the people who run things are able to do so because of some special quality. It's just a question of power, who runs things and for what purpose and by what means. If you run things because you are able to increase your wealth and power off of larger groups of people, then it's in your best interests to believe and convince others to believe that you have some quality or enlightenment which makes your rule correct. Maybe God picked you to rule, you're from a long and powerful noble heritage... Or today, that you have some kind of insight or personal merit which makes you fit to rule. But really it's just the way society is organized (reproducing itself by using private wealth and wage-labor) that creates a layer of people who need to control the larger group of people to maintain that social organization. Among those people there may be some with better qualities or more skills than others, but their mutual interest in maintaining this organization of society means they can arrange and debate and compete among themselves.

[The Jay]

Why not abolish work?



The allowance of work to exist is still an alteration of our current reality. I mean, that's what leftists want. People to continue doing shit they don't wanna do, in the name of "the greater good". This means that a leftist revolution is essentially glorified reform.

I say we should abolish work. Be ludic, and be self-propulsive.

I don't mean work as wage labor or as a forced activity.

[BIXX]

I don't mean work as wage labor or as a forced activity.


I'd be interested in hearing about how you mean it then. Do you follow closely with Kropotkin's ideas regarding work?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I say we should abolish work. Be ludic, and be self-propulsive.I'm pretty sure people in band societies sometimes had to do unpleasant tasks for "the greater good". But they didn't need a state to tell them because it was transparently in their interests to accomplish the chore.

Work may and hopefully can wither as people develop ways to minimize necessary but uninteresting tasks, but I don't think it could be "abolished"... Not without resulting in mass famine leading right back into class societies and forced labor. Private property and the things that help hold class society together can be abolished though.

[Ele'ill]

So what governing body would oversee work

[robbo203]

To me, the philosophy of Communism has always been much like the word Utopia, perfect, but unobtainable by definition. A glorious goal, but ultimately too pristine to accomplish by flawed human beings.
.

"A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not even worth glancing at. Progress is the realisation of Utopias"

(Oscar Wilde The Soul of Man under Socialism)


Personally I consider that it is the "possibilists" - the run-of-the-mill reformists of every shade, the advocates of this or that quack scheme to quick-fix capitalism, the proponents of "funny money" , "basic incomes" and easy credit and, of course, the supporters of nationalisation and state capitalism - to be the ones with their heads in the clouds and with feet of clay.


It is the "impossibilists" - those who advocate nothing less than full stateless moneyless communism - who have been the hard headed realists all along, who have said all along that you cannot possibly run capitalism in the interests of the workers and that you are never ever going to magick way the fundamental underlying problems that the system throws up because those problems are part of the very nature of the system itself and are functional to its own systemic needs. Anyone who doubts that has only to consider, for instance, capitalism's history of recurring crisies and the futile attempts to prevent them. Schumpeter described the capitalist trade cycle as "creative destruction" and for good reason

So you can mock the idea of communism, if you so wish, as "unobtainable by definition" and look down upon your fellow workers as "flawed human beings" - thereby buying into the pernicious bourgeois prejudiuce that communism requires us to be all angels and not in the least interest driven what is in our own class interests - but what is your alternative? What is your "pragmatic" suggestion as to how we might realistically accommodate ourselves to the obscenity and utter waste that is modern capitalism?

If I never live to see communism, which is quite likely, I can at least put my hand on my heart and say I tried to make this sick and crazy world a little bit better. My advocacy of full communism is one small tiny blow against the barbarism and the brutality of nationalism, the dangerous stupidities of the warmongerers and the contemptible contempt which capitalism heaps on those who have not "made it" on its own inane money-obsessed terms

I will at least, I sincerely hope, go to my grave without that damning epitaph being inscribed on the headstone "He died a cynic". I cannot think of a more pathetic and tragic waste of a life - and we only have one - than to merit an epitaph such as that

[G4b3n]

So what governing body would oversee work

In post revolutionary society?
Soviets, syndicates, worker's committees, worker's councils or any other institutions established by and comprised of the working class.

[BIXX]

In post revolutionary society?

Soviets, syndicates, worker's committees, worker's councils or any other institutions established by and comprised of the working class.


Well I won't bow to them. And I don't think anyone should.

I would attack a workers' syndicate as much as I would attack the state. I will take care of myself and those I care about. I see no need to bow to what others have told me to do, no matter who tells me to do it. Denying authority is why I'm an anarchist, not to change whose authority I allow.

[Ele'ill]

In post revolutionary society?
Soviets, syndicates, worker's committees, worker's councils or any other institutions established by and comprised of the working class.

How will they enforce 'work' will they set up a police force and court system?

[G4b3n]

How will they enforce 'work' will they set up a police force and court system?

To "oversee" is not the same as to "enforce". I was thinking about the practical functions of any society.


Well I won't bow to them. And I don't think anyone should.

I would attack a workers' syndicate as much as I would attack the state. I will take care of myself and those I care about. I see no need to bow to what others have told me to do, no matter who tells me to do it. Denying authority is why I'm an anarchist, not to change whose authority I allow.

To be an anarchist does not mean to reject all authority, that is a common misconception and strawman. It also certainly does mean only caring for yourself and those you care about, that is exactly the kind of bourgeois morality that leads to apathetically allowing the exploitation of those in need.

To be an anarchist is to reject illegitimate authority. To recognize that authority has a burden of proof as to why it should be allowed to exist and that the institutions that comprise society are to be ran from the bottom up so to dismantle unnecessary social hierarchy.

We as anarchists (especially of the communist and syndicalist traditions) believe that the institutions formed by and for the oppressed wield legitimate authority and are in the position to carry out the collective and democratic wishes of the community.

[BIXX]

To "oversee" is not the same as to "enforce". I was thinking about the practical functions of any society.

Well then I wouldn't work.

Plus I'm against society.


To be an anarchist does not mean to reject all authority, that is a common misconception and strawman.

I disagree. Authority rules over us, anarchists are against rulers. I would elaborate as to why Bakunin is wrong with the bookmaker analogy but I don't have time right now.


It also certainly does mean only caring for yourself and those you care about, that is exactly the kind of bourgeois morality that leads to apathetically allowing the exploitation of those in need.

That's because those people don't understand that ending the oppression of other is in their best interests, because if one person is oppressed, all people are oppressed.


To be an anarchist is to reject illegitimate authority.

There is no legitimate authority. Two reasons: authority is not the same as being knowledgeable as Bakunin would have us believe, and legitimacy is subjective.


To recognize that authority has a burden of proof as to why it should be allowed to exist and that the institutions that comprise society are to be ran from the bottom up so to dismantle unnecessary social hierarchy.

There is no necessary social hierarchy. I also oppose "bottom up" rule, as that constitutes limitation of myself as I must maneuver within that stricter to be successful.


We as anarchists (especially of the communist and syndicalist traditions) believe that the institutions formed by and for the oppressed wield legitimate authority and are in the position to carry out the collective and democratic wishes of the community.


You all fail to realize that those institutions will oppress people all the same.

Also I'm no traditional communist- I may not even be a communist proper. And again, I won't bow to their wishes if they limit me.

[Slavic]

Well then I wouldn't work.

Plus I'm against society.

Have fun plowing your own fields, chopping wood for your house, mining ore for your tools, etc. Society does not want nor needs anti-social people like yourself. You will die within weeks from hunger.

As to what G4b3n is saying.

Humans are naturally social, industrious, and creative organisms. To say people need to be forced to work from some institute follows along bourgeoisie thinking that man is naturally greedy and lazy and will forever need to carrot to follow and a stick to run from.

Soviets/Syndicates are not states but institutions of people based around a certain commodity production. They do not force its members to work, instead they collectively figure out what kind of work needs to be done to fullfill a societal need; such as food production, iron production, etc. It is up to the individuals of these institutions to decide if they wish to participate in this work.

[BIXX]

Have fun plowing your own fields, chopping wood for your house, mining ore for your tools, etc. Society does not want nor needs anti-social people like yourself. You will die within weeks from hunger.

Society is a force which decides the base morality of the time. Some parts of society (the ruling parts) have more influence over this, but that is all society is. I'm not against sociability.


As to what G4b3n is saying.

Humans are naturally social, industrious, and creative organisms. To say people need to be forced to work from some institute follows along bourgeoisie thinking that man is naturally greedy and lazy and will forever need to carrot to follow and a stick to run from.

Not that we are naturally greedy or lazy- in fact, play can be neither greedy nor lazy. It's that we would (obviously) much rather be doing fun thighs than things we dislike.


Soviets/Syndicates are not states but institutions of people based around a certain commodity production.

However, if people disagree with them, the will of that soviet is going to be imposed on them, under the guise of "the will of the people". This is problematic for several reasons, for instance: who is "the people"? Are they really that homogenous?


They do not force its members to work, instead they collectively figure out what kind of work needs to be done to fullfill a societal need; such as food production, iron production, etc. It is up to the individuals of these institutions to decide if they wish to participate in this work.


So what happens if the individuals choose not to work but to play, to do other things that they enjoy?

[BIXX]

Have fun plowing your own fields, chopping wood for your house, mining ore for your tools, etc. Society does not want nor needs anti-social people like yourself. You will die within weeks from hunger.

Also have you ever had a garden? One person can feed themselves off of very little land. But one person and a few friends? That shit can be easy and fun. Making it play, not work.

I will not have my play dictated to me by some soviet.

[Ele'ill]

To "oversee" is not the same as to "enforce". I was thinking about the practical functions of any society.

How would those overseeing society enforce specific functions, expectations, demands, of the society they have created. Would they set up a police force and courts and prisons?




To be an anarchist is to reject illegitimate authority.

who better to decide this than the individual facing coercion




We as anarchists (especially of the communist and syndicalist traditions) believe that the institutions formed by and for the oppressed wield legitimate authority and are in the position to carry out the collective and democratic wishes of the community.

In what way though, towards total freedom or towards control of a structured society that looks a lot like the previous?

[Slavic]

Society is a force which decides the base morality of the time. Some parts of society (the ruling parts) have more influence over this, but that is all society is. I'm not against sociability.

Right it is, and hopefully a revolution can change the morality of our society from competition and oppression, to the Marxist maxim "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


However, if people disagree with them, the will of that soviet is going to be imposed on them, under the guise of "the will of the people". This is problematic for several reasons, for instance: who is "the people"? Are they really that homogenous?

The soviet isn't imposing itself on the people. The soviet is the people. Soviets do not hold power over people, they are more like a think tank. A collection of individuals who democratically determine the best mode and means for a commodity to be produced for society at large. If an individual does not like a way the production of a commodity is being produced then they can vote to change it. If they do not like the nature of the work, then they can go to another soviet or start one themselves.


So what happens if the individuals choose not to work but to play, to do other things that they enjoy?

We all starve. I'm not a utopian, I understand that to maintain our current population and provide a basic level of housing and healthcare there needs to be some form of organized work. Whether you like it or not, someone has to operate sewer treatment plants, someone has to farm in the hot sun, someone has to sweat building houses.

The goal of socialism is to organize such labor so that it is keep at it its lowest amount to keep the society functioning while maximizing free time. There is room for play, but you can not play all day and expect to survive on Earth.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I'm sure someone will disagree with me just to be contrary, but leftist domestic policy seems to require from a given populace, a level of intellectual enlightenment which likely cannot be obtained without use of non-socialist governmental structure for several generations.

So how do modern communist and socialist progressives reconcile their desire for a stateless society, when Liberal policies tend to cause increased government centralization?

To me, the philosophy of Communism has always been much like the word Utopia, perfect, but unobtainable by definition. A glorious goal, but ultimately too pristine to accomplish by flawed human beings.

Without giving a full manifesto, what is the "end game" for many of you?

In several generations, if everything falls into place the way you hope, what is your ideal government structure, discounting the pipe dream of the Utopian hypothetical of a classless, stateless and society.

A few points I'd like to make:
1. Communism is anti-liberal. Marxists and anarchists are not more extreme liberals. There are those who see their worldview as revolutionary who are for nationalization of industry and other typical soc-dem stuff, but the majority on revleft would see this as social democracy down the barrel of a gun.
2. The Utopia and Human Nature arguments are tired and over-used. There is no such thing as human nature.
"Throughout history people have assumed the way they live now is the only way people ever have lived and the only way they ever can, and they've always been wrong" - me.
If you seriously study history it becomes evident humans are highly adaptable and can organize their activities in a variety of different ways and still thrive. 90% of human existence was primitive communism.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

without giving a full manifesto, what is the "end game" for many of you?

For people to cut the shit and exorcise these idiotic ghosts they always invoke.

"OOooooooOOooooo, I'm the ghost of hoooooman natureeeeeee, u cant has communisszmmms."

The only Utopian pipedream that I see is that of statism in general.

[BIXX]

Right it is, and hopefully a revolution can change the morality of our society from competition and oppression, to the Marxist maxim "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

ALL morality oppresses individuals. It tells them what they can and cannot do, not because it will oppress others (and thus themselves) but because it will benefit those who had the greater say in that morality (which by definition could not be the minority).


The soviet isn't imposing itself on the people. The soviet is the people. Soviets do not hold power over people, they are more like a think tank. A collection of individuals who democratically determine the best mode and means for a commodity to be produced for society at large. If an individual does not like a way the production of a commodity is being produced then they can vote to change it. If they do not like the nature of the work, then they can go to another soviet or start one themselves.

If the soviet does not enforce that decision what is the point of democracy? Why shouldn't groups of friends organize on the basis of an affinity group and do what they need done? Democracy is oppressive as it provides a system of limitation for an individual.


We all starve. I'm not a utopian, I understand that to maintain our current population and provide a basic level of housing and healthcare there needs to be some form of organized work. Whether you like it or not, someone has to operate sewer treatment plants, someone has to farm in the hot sun, someone has to sweat building houses.

Except not really. Have you heard of composting toilets, and the concept of ludic?


The goal of socialism is to organize such labor so that it is keep at it its lowest amount to keep the society functioning while maximizing free time. There is room for play, but you can not play all day and expect to survive on Earth.


Play is not the same as leisure time. When leisure is quantified (as you are advocating) it is not play, but a commodity.

You should read "On the Abolition of Work" by Bob Black.

"Armed Joy" wouldn't be a bad one to read either.

[The Immortal Emrys]

"Class" is simply a word to describe the haves and the have nots. It is my belief that human beings are incapable of achieving a global society where there are no have nots.

The goal of Liberalism, of Communists and of Socialists, should be the pursuit of a world where we minimize the number of have nots. If we here on this forum cannot agree upon basic philosophy, even with our western education, how can we expect 7.1 billion people to agree collectively?

[The Immortal Emrys]

How exactly is classless society Utopian? Is the necessity of class society a part of the laws of physics or something?


U·to·pi·a
yo͞oˈtōpēə/
noun
1.
an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect. The word was first used in the book Utopia (1516) by Sir Thomas More.


It is an imagined place, where everything is perfect. Meaning it will never exist, even if the vast majority desires it, simply due to the fact that no nation can exist within a bubble, and fossil fuel economic dependency prevents a bottom up workers revolution.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I'm sure someone will disagree with me just to be contrary, but leftist domestic policy seems to require from a given populace, a level of intellectual enlightenment which likely cannot be obtained without use of non-socialist governmental structure for several generations.What domestic policy seems to require a higher level of intellectual enlightenment?


So how do modern communist and socialist progressives reconcile their desire for a stateless society, when Liberal policies tend to cause increased government centralization? Why would I have to reconcile my desires with the fact that liberal policies tend to cause increased government centralization? I'm not a liberal, the point is to change the course of events away from liberals having power. Especially in this era when what seems to be on the liberals agenda is cuts and privatization, not increased government centralization. Unless we're talking about "security" or something.


Without giving a full manifesto, what is the "end game" for many of you?Communism. A world where I'm not going to have to worry about going hungry on food stamps because I can't find someone who wants to exploit my labor.

[The Immortal Emrys]

I appreciate your response, I'm simply more of a realist, I suppose. I'd like to see real change in my lifetime, but there will be no American Revolution in my years, and I would like to see a collective movement from the American left to solidify and find common ground.

Too often the anarchists are at the throats of the liberals are at the throats of the socialists, when we all should take those ideas, put them together and counter the working class extortion of the right and centrist liberals like Obama and the Clintons.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I appreciate your response, I'm simply more of a realist, I suppose.

No, you're actually not, lol, the fuck. This is why statism is a mental disorder, imho, right here.

[The Immortal Emrys]

Well ok, so first off a classless and stateless society is not utopian in any sense because this is how human societies functioned for most of human existence.

You're going to need a citation here if you're going to claim I made assumptions, as this is a tremendous one.


That would also be more like the question of "policies" and so there are many different views of what you call "left-wing policies" so the claim that they inevitably lead to some kind of state centralization over people is kind of an unspecific blob of a criticism. Sorry if that seems like a dodge, but it's just too broad of a generalization to even know how to address it.

Perhaps I should have clarified to say traditional American liberal policies cause centralization of government, rather than classical Liberalism, which hasn't really been in practice since the Republicans and Democrats switched stances in the early 1900s. Post 1900's liberal policies tend to cause Centralization.

[/QUOTE]The "intellectual sophistication" argument is also broad, but it's a type of argument you hear a lot... Especially from liberals. I don't know what this intellectual quality means to you, but academic knowledge or ideas or intellect seems less important to me than how society is organized. It benifits the ruling class for people to think of politics as something separate and isolated and for regular people to think that the people who run things are able to do so because of some special quality.[/QUOTE]

Which is nothing like what I suggested. I simply make the case that an educated and enlightened society is better able to think critically about the structure of said society. If there is no value placed on education, and no system by which to educate, there can be no skilled working class, no philosophers to engineer the ideas we are discussing now, and no logistics to support a social structure.



It's just a question of power, who runs things and for what purpose and by what means. If you run things because you are able to increase your wealth and power off of larger groups of people, then it's in your best interests to believe and convince others to believe that you have some quality or enlightenment which makes your rule correct.

You're making a great case for why homeschooling isn't the greatest way to educate children, but you have derailed your point, which was a critique of my suggestion that an educated society is needed to create a universally equal society, because knowledge can help defeat irrational fear, and fear is one of the easiest methods of control for totalitarians.



Among those people there may be some with better qualities or more skills than others, but their mutual interest in maintaining this organization of society means they can arrange and debate and compete among themselves.

So a legislature. Don't you see, you're just naming the same societal structures differently, but you're still singling out those with the skills and the merits as the decision makers.

[Fourth Internationalist]

U·to·pi·a
yo͞oˈtōpēə/
noun
1.
an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect. The word was first used in the book Utopia (1516) by Sir Thomas More.


It is an imagined place, where everything is perfect. Meaning it will never exist, even if the vast majority desires it, simply due to the fact that no nation can exist within a bubble, and fossil fuel economic dependency prevents a bottom up workers revolution.

Thank you, I know the definition of Utopia now! :rolleyes:

And what exactly do those two things cause that prevent a workers' revolution? You mean as in "socialism in one country" or something? I'm not sure what message you're conveying here.

[Hermes]

U·to·pi·a
yo͞oˈtōpēə/
noun
1.
an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect. The word was first used in the book Utopia (1516) by Sir Thomas More.


It is an imagined place, where everything is perfect. Meaning it will never exist, even if the vast majority desires it, simply due to the fact that no nation can exist within a bubble, and fossil fuel economic dependency prevents a bottom up workers revolution.


it's a good thing no one here thinks that communism is a place where everything is perfect, then

[Jimmie Higgins]

Also have you ever had a garden? One person can feed themselves off of very little land. But one person and a few friends? That shit can be easy and fun. Making it play, not work.

I will not have my play dictated to me by some soviet.so your view is that to abolish work we need to make quite a bit more work for ourselves?

You can't go backwards and hobbyist gardening is not "fun" if it's required for survival, it's not that easy... Especially since everyone would be too busy gardening to survive to make tools or create easy irrigation and water systems.

Only a disaster would make such a society possible and since class societies arose out of agricultural communities, it would not be very long before someone figured out that communities would be able to be more stable and prosperous if some "big man" organized the agricultural surplus.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So what governing body would oversee work
What governing body in modern capitalism tells people they need to have a job? It's not needed in modern capitalism because it's generalized to the point of being "natural". Work organized and run mutually could be custom, it would be custom under communist social relations. Just like no one needed to be told in band societies by a governing body to share any surplus so that some people didn't need to do direct food producing and could develop their ability to make tools or build rafts so that others could get more food, etc.

[The Immortal Emrys]

Thank you, I know the definition of Utopia now! :rolleyes:

And what exactly do those two things cause that prevent a workers' revolution? You mean as in "socialism in one country" or something? I'm not sure what message you're conveying here.

I'm conveying this message.

No geographical area of the world can survive in an insulated bubble in the current age. The people living in the midwest of America require resources from the coast, the coast requires resources from the midwest, the north requires resources from the south, the south requires resources from overseas.

So either the entire world becomes a collective, working toward the betterment of all, or no one can, simply due to the economic dependency on fossil fuels for agricultural distribution alone. And that's just considering the dietary needs of 7.1 billion people.

If you consider the clothing, housing, and transportation needs, the resources necessary begin to grow exponentially. In order for American workers to seize the means of production, they would need cooperative agreements with oil suppliers, else their production facilities are useless.

What does it matter if the workers own the means of production, if opposing ideological factions own the means of transporting goods?

[The Immortal Emrys]

I believe we ought to not only utilize all of the tools of class struggle but we also need to establish our own institutions which need to explicitly and unambiguously state the goals of the working class movement and what we oppose in regards to the current state of things. That is the task at hand right now; as far as revolution is concerned, it can be fun to fantasize about but it is a long way down the road.

As far as what you as an individual leftist can do, there is not much outside of the scope of liberalism that you can directly advocate for in terms of bourgeois state policy. Even though our end goal is a stateless society, do not simplify things into government=bad and less government=good. The rightists who oppose the tool of their own class (i.e the state) almost always (and by almost I mean literally) view freedom as being the freedom to oppress and exploit others and when the bourgeois state hinders this function of freedom to the very small degree in which it does (minimum wage, limited work hours, and other victories won by the working class) the rightists view this as an attack on human liberty in its entirety.



This is the kind of answer I was looking for, thank you very much!

If you could, would you mind expounding a bit on some of the items you feel could be common ground for the worker's movement in the coming decades? How can socialists like myself and communists in America and other western democracies begin to cultivate find common ground and build support for a philosophy which has been so demonized?

I feel like it's our responsibility in this generation to prepare the minds of our children to parse the rhetoric of the mainstream and propagandist medias, but I can't explain to them how we will go about reaching a stateless and classless society, or if such a society could ever exist with such a diverse range of human opinions.

I find it very difficult to reconcile my overriding desire for unbridled freedom with my longing for a world that minimizes inequality and suffering. It's an existential humanist struggle.

It's sad to see so many biting, tongue-in-cheek responses from people of similar ideologies, especially when those same people are demanding from others a level of empathy they refuse to give. I really appreciate you taking the time to answer honestly and without judgement.

[The Immortal Emrys]

No, you're actually not, lol, the fuck. This is why statism is a mental disorder, imho, right here.

And your comment brought nothing to the discussion but ad-hominem and negativity. Which is why you will never persuade anyone that you are correct. Your inability to empathize defeated you before you even hit reply.

Now, I live in the real world, I have a wife, a business and two kids who I love more than anything in this world.

If you want to change society into your idyllic worker's paradise, you have to learn how to win people over to your philosophy.

You don't do that by being arrogant and elitist, by saying those who you disagree with are suffering from a "mental disorder". That just makes you and intellectual classist and a hypocrite.

Embrace people who ask questions without judgement, don't lash out at them.

[The Immortal Emrys]

What domestic policy seems to require a higher level of intellectual enlightenment?

I should clarify. I really should have said leftist policies, not liberal policies.

It takes a certain level of intellectualism to understand the value of a worker's revolution, especially in a nation where pro-capitalist propaganda is standard in education and media. It takes an educated mind to view the world through a wide angle lens. If you don't have a frame of reference, you can't understand something.

The fact that most American high school graduates cannot tell you a thing about the early 1900's revolutions in Russia, except to say that it birthed communism (using the word as a curse), is a tremendous detriment to the movement.

How can we bring more young people into the fold if they aren't educated enough to view the history objectively?

So leftist domestic policy does often require a certain level of intellectualism, or at least a modicum of objectivity when viewing history.



Why would I have to reconcile my desires with the fact that liberal policies tend to cause increased government centralization? I'm not a liberal, the point is to change the course of events away from liberals having power. Especially in this era when what seems to be on the liberals agenda is cuts and privatization, not increased government centralization. Unless we're talking about "security" or something.

This is an excellent answer, thank you! Though I think still influenced by the misnomer I used, but you addressed something I wanted to discuss, and that is the movement of the American left toward the center.

When American Liberals are still conservatives in disguise, how can leftists cultivate a working class party to change the status quo? What ideas do you have for cultivating and solidifying the base?



Communism. A world where I'm not going to have to worry about going hungry on food stamps because I can't find someone who wants to exploit my labor.

I like your end game, I just don't believe it will happen during the lifetimes of me or my kids. Still, our generation can lay the groundwork if we can come up with some common ground for all leftists to stand on. A policy paper outlining a step-by-step shift toward a worker friendly America would be brilliant.

I find the idea of Communism to be much like the idea of human perfection. It's impossible to fully achieve, but that shouldn't stop every single person from trying to make it happen.

[The Immortal Emrys]

This is a great and well thought out comment that jives with what I have considered in the past. Do you think there is a way to peacefully subvert the capitalist agenda and take the reigns of American government back from the ruling elite, possibly via the power of communications technology?

Or do you truly believe our only recourse is a violent revolution?

[Sinister Intents]

This is a great and well thought out comment that jives with what I have considered in the past. Do you think there is a way to peacefully subvert the capitalist agenda and take the reigns of American government back from the ruling elite, possibly via the power of communications technology?

Or do you truly believe our only recourse is a violent revolution?

I don't think their is any peaceful way to subvert the capitalists peacefully. It won't happen without bloodshed, they won't simply step down from power through peace, they'll fight back and hold onto their power. Why take the reigns of government? All states and nations need to be crushed and abolished because they're tools of class rule. I think certain areas during revolution will be peaceful, but other areas will be extremely violent battlefields.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I'm conveying this message.

No geographical area of the world can survive in an insulated bubble in the current age. The people living in the midwest of America require resources from the coast, the coast requires resources from the midwest, the north requires resources from the south, the south requires resources from overseas.

So either the entire world becomes a collective, working toward the betterment of all, or no one can, simply due to the economic dependency on fossil fuels for agricultural distribution alone. And that's just considering the dietary needs of 7.1 billion people.

If you consider the clothing, housing, and transportation needs, the resources necessary begin to grow exponentially. In order for American workers to seize the means of production, they would need cooperative agreements with oil suppliers, else their production facilities are useless.

What does it matter if the workers own the means of production, if opposing ideological factions own the means of transporting goods?

You are oh so right sir! :) This is exactly why the Stalinist conception of Socialism in One Country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country) cannot work! Here (http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/faq/why_socialism_in_one_country_impossible.asp) is a quick reading on it. It is exactly why Engels, in The Principles of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm), states:


— 19 —
Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.Good job, you're right! :thumbup:

[G4b3n]

Well then I wouldn't work.

Plus I'm against society.



I disagree. Authority rules over us, anarchists are against rulers. I would elaborate as to why Bakunin is wrong with the bookmaker analogy but I don't have time right now.



That's because those people don't understand that ending the oppression of other is in their best interests, because if one person is oppressed, all people are oppressed.



There is no legitimate authority. Two reasons: authority is not the same as being knowledgeable as Bakunin would have us believe, and legitimacy is subjective.



There is no necessary social hierarchy. I also oppose "bottom up" rule, as that constitutes limitation of myself as I must maneuver within that stricter to be successful.




You all fail to realize that those institutions will oppress people all the same.

Also I'm no traditional communist- I may not even be a communist proper. And again, I won't bow to their wishes if they limit me.

I am sorry comrade, but I am afraid you have a few misconceptions about what anarchism actually is. Your understanding of anarchism seems to be dangerously close to the "I can do whatever I want without consequences and all authority is abolished" side of things, that is horribly undesirable and has nothing to do with socialism, i.e, what the anarchist wishes to establish. We wish to compel the workers and oppressed to establish our own institutions that are capable of challenging bourgeois power structures and are organized in such a way that horizontal decision making is the means of functioning. Also, anarchists do not claim that there is no legitimate authority, that is a grave misconception.

If you wish to live independently with a few friends I don't see why you don't do that now independently of bourgeois society, it doesn't take a revolution to accomplish what you are talking about.

[BIXX]

I am sorry comrade, but I am afraid you have a few misconceptions about what anarchism actually is.

I'm just breaking from the left-anarchist tradition. This does not constitute the entire anarchist milieu. Anarchism, is against rulers, and thus hierarchy and oppression.


Your understanding of anarchism seems to be dangerously close to the "I can do whatever I want without consequences and all authority is abolished" side of things, that is horribly undesirable and has nothing to do with socialism, i.e, what the anarchist wishes to establish.

Not true. Anarchists wish to abolish rulers. Anything else is either their understanding of how this may be done or a theory they find compatible with anarchism.


We wish to compel the workers and oppressed to establish our own institutions that are capable of challenging bourgeois power structures and are organized in such a way that horizontal decision making is the means of functioning.

Again, I disagree on the basis that these structures will abolish one oppression in the place of another. I choose instead to bow to no structure, no system.


Also, anarchists do not claim that there is no legitimate authority, that is a grave misconception.

I do not believe I made that claim, but I may be mistaken (I am on my phone right now so it is hard to check) and if I did then I mis-typed. What I should have said is I don't accept any authority as legitimate, and that anyone who identifies as an anarchist shouldn't either.


If you wish to live independently with a few friends I don't see why you don't do that now independently of bourgeois society, it doesn't take a revolution to accomplish what you are talking about.


The problem is that the oppression of one individual, anywhere, is oppressive to all, as we cannot express ourselves in relation to that individual as freely as we could if they were not oppressed. We cannot interact as free individuals if they cannot.

This means that yes, there must be a revolution.

Plus, you guys argue against peaceful coexistence all the time, the same arguments apply here.

[robbo203]

And your comment brought nothing to the discussion but ad-hominem and negativity. Which is why you will never persuade anyone that you are correct. Your inability to empathize defeated you before you even hit reply.

Now, I live in the real world, I have a wife, a business and two kids who I love more than anything in this world.

If you want to change society into your idyllic worker's paradise, you have to learn how to win people over to your philosophy.

You don't do that by being arrogant and elitist, by saying those who you disagree with are suffering from a "mental disorder". That just makes you and intellectual classist and a hypocrite.

Embrace people who ask questions without judgement, don't lash out at them.

Point taken - even if it was not addressed to me - but you, in turn, need to take on board the criticisms made of you, not recoil and withdraw into a bubble of self-righteous superiority. Sorry. but you were not "asking question without judgement". You were prejudging and even the very phraseology you employ - "flawed human beings", "your idyllic worker's paradise" etc etc - drip with prejudice. You should not have been so surprised that your comments would have been viewed as a red rag to a bull.

But fair enough - we are all prone to making foot-in-mouth comments we later regret. The short answer to the various points you make is that, no, we dont see communism as some kind of perfect society, the realisation of which is dependent on us sprouting wings and becoming angels . We advocate for communism because, quite simply, its a damn sight better than the society we presently live under. Because it is in our material interests to have such a society

You talk of being realistic. Well, lets be realistic. Can capitalism be run in the interests of workers? Can capitalism be administered in such a manner as to eliminate the scourges of poverty, wars, environmental destruction and that all-pervasive nagging sense of insecurity which you as a family man running your own business should know all about. Even to raise such questions is to answer them.

You need to familiarise yourself with what lies behind the case for communism not just airily dismiss it as a "pipe dream" (Indeed, if you do seriously believe that, why bother asking our opinion?). There is nothing new about the objections you raise.

Of course a stateless moneyless alternative to capitalism presupposes a massive sea change in outlook which has also to be global in scope. No one is disputing that. But we have the technology and the material infrastructure to underwiite such a society today. It is attitudes and ideas that need to be brought in line with this material reality. The sheer waste and inefficiency of capitalism, its demonstrable and ever growing inability to fully tap this material potential for the benefit of everyone is most clearly illustrated by the fact that most of the work we do is absolutely pointless from the point of view of meeting human needs. It simply exists to keep the money system ticking over and to oil the wheels of commerce.

At this point in time the prospects of a genuine communist society may well appear hopelessly far off and unrealistic. But ideas dont just grow in some kind of slow steady incremental fashion. On the contrary , once a critical threshold is reached they tend to snowball exponentially.

To coin a cliche, communism is an idea whose time has come. There is nothing else left to turn to. Everything else has been tried and found wanting. It is up to you to become part of the movement that will put communism firmly on the agenda for the very first time - if you want . We cannot do it for you and saying to yourself, as many others do, that communism is just a pipedream is in fact to engage in a self fulfulling prophecy that ensures it remains a "pipedream"

[G4b3n]

I'm just breaking from the left-anarchist tradition. This does not constitute the entire anarchist milieu. Anarchism, is against rulers, and thus hierarchy and oppression.

You are breaking from the anarchist tradition in its entirety. Yes, we want to abolish the current power system, but we have always wanted something in its place, there have been disagreements but never anyone saying "No system". There has to be a system to protect the oppressed and prevent the oppressors from continuing their exploitation. As I have already said, freedom also means the freedom to exploit.




Not true. Anarchists wish to abolish rulers. Anything else is either their understanding of how this may be done or a theory they find compatible with anarchism.

Anarchism is more than just "we want to abolish all rulers", that is just one in a number of basic anarchist notions. All though the statement is very true, which is why we support the democratic management of worker's institutions with no rulers and no masters.




Again, I disagree on the basis that these structures will abolish one oppression in the place of another. I choose instead to bow to no structure, no system.

I fail to see how democratic and horizontally organized worker's institutions can be opressive if they are in fact truly democratic and horizontal. If there was no system and no structures, there would be oppressors and and consequentially there would be oppressed.




I do not believe I made that claim, but I may be mistaken (I am on my phone right now so it is hard to check) and if I did then I mis-typed. What I should have said is I don't accept any authority as legitimate, and that anyone who identifies as an anarchist shouldn't either.


There is no legitimate authority

There is no way of constructing a desirable egalitarian society with that sort of notion in mind. The bourgeoisie would be sucking at the blood of workers in no time.


The problem is that the oppression of one individual, anywhere, is oppressive to all, as we cannot express ourselves in relation to that individual as freely as we could if they were not oppressed. We cannot interact as free individuals if they cannot.

This means that yes, there must be a revolution.

I agree. Which is why I urge you to reconsider what constitutes as oppression and the measures that must be taken to actually abolish it.


Plus, you guys argue against peaceful coexistence all the time, the same arguments apply here.

Who are "you guys"? Anarchists?
Peaceful coexistence with whom?

[BIXX]

You are breaking from the anarchist tradition in its entirety.

If that is the case, then so be it. I don't want to be part of a flawed tradition.


Yes, we want to abolish the current power system, but we have always wanted something in its place, there have been disagreements but never anyone saying "No system".

That is incorrect, post-leftists call for no system.


There has to be a system to protect the oppressed and prevent the oppressors from continuing their exploitation. As I have already said, freedom also means the freedom to exploit.

Not true. When you oppress someone else you are also limiting yourself. It is not good for you. Also, you are assuming people will passively accept domination in a system-less world, which Kropotkin
Essentially refuted when it came to capitalists making the same claim.


Anarchism is more than just "we want to abolish all rulers", that is just one in a number of basic anarchist notions. All though the statement is very true, which is why we support the democratic management of worker's institutions with no rulers and no masters.

What other tenets are there that really matter?

Also organizationalism is flawed, IMO. (I have a better critique than that written somewhere but I'm on my phone, but you can find critiques of it everywhere).


I fail to see how democratic and horizontally organized worker's institutions can be opressive if they are in fact truly democratic and horizontal.

Because we are forced to work within them to achieve a set if goals that are pre-determined. I want to have my own goals and ideas, and be able to act on them freely.


If there was no system and no structures, there would be oppressors and and consequentially there would be oppressed.

How can they oppress me without the usage of structures and systems?


There is no way of constructing a desirable egalitarian society with that sort of notion in mind. The bourgeoisie would be sucking at the blood of workers in no time.

Again, how would they do that without systems and structures?


I agree. Which is why I urge you to reconsider what constitutes as oppression and the measures that must be taken to actually abolish it.

I urge you to do the same. You seem to be willing to enslave yourself as long as your master is "the people". I am not, however.


Who are "you guys"? Anarchists?

Peaceful coexistence with whom?


"You guys" being left-anarchists.

Peaceful coexistence with oppressors. Left anarchists argue against peaceful coexistence with capitalists, I argue against peaceful coexistence with all oppression.

[motion denied]

EchoShock, I have two questions: what does it mean to be against society (lolwat) and what is a system?


Because we are forced to work within them to achieve a set if goals that are pre-determined. I want to have my own goals and ideas, and be able to act on them freely.

What a load of egoistic bollocks.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

And your comment brought nothing to the discussion but ad-hominem and negativity.

Actually I think I was highlighting the absurdity of your statements via humor, hmm.


Which is why you will never persuade anyone that you are correct.

Drats and double drats.


Your inability to empathize defeated you before you even hit reply.

OH NO! :crying:


Now, I live in the real world, I have a wife, a business and two kids who I love more than anything in this world.

Nice to meet you, I also live in the real world with a husband, fur daughter and a spotless library book return record. How do you do.


If you want to change society into your idyllic worker's paradise, you have to learn how to win people over to your philosophy.

Really? Is that how it works?


You don't do that by being arrogant and elitist, by saying those who you disagree with are suffering from a "mental disorder". That just makes you and intellectual classist and a hypocrite.

Do you really not get how condescending your comments are? Do you not see that's what I was poking fun at? That's the sort of illogic I getting on about and was highlighting? I mean, come on, you're all like "I'm simply more of a realist," for crying out loud, how is that not condescending, arrogant, elitist, etc? Why do you think I chose to comment on it? The irony here is unreal.


Embrace people who ask questions without judgement, don't lash out at them.

Duly noted.

[BIXX]

EchoShock, I have two questions: what does it mean to be against society (lolwat) and what is a system?

Being against society follows from being anti-morality (as I am). Seeing as society is the force that decides or derives morality.

As for a system, I'm operating under this: a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or method.


What a load of egoistic bollocks.


Well that's like, your opinion, man.

Anyway, I am an egoist.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You're going to need a citation here if you're going to claim I made assumptions, as this is a tremendous one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism


I simply make the case that an educated and enlightened society is better able to think critically about the structure of said society. If there is no value placed on education, and no system by which to educate, there can be no skilled working class, no philosophers to engineer the ideas we are discussing now, and no logistics to support a social structure. Well I disagree. Of course I think people would want better and more fulfilling education and a liberated society would put an emphasis on education in my opinion, but some level of education is not necessary to have a equal society or for regular people to make decisions about things in their lives. People don't need to think more critically or whatnot, it's not a question of ideas alone in my view and most people are disatisfied with things, the barrier isn't ideas it's the ability for regular people to wield any leverage in the way things work that's the biggest barrier imo.


You're making a great case for why homeschooling isn't the greatest way to educate children, but you have derailed your point, which was a critique of my suggestion that an educated society is needed to create a universally equal society, because knowledge can help defeat irrational fear, and fear is one of the easiest methods of control for totalitarians.It's not a pre-condition for change at all. "Irrational fear" or "irrational" ideas are not what keep people chained in my view. It's the daily realities of our lives, the material things, which are most important. Peasants and slaves fought struggles and revolts and slaves in classical times and modern fought for liberation, Parisian and Russian workers fought for liberation at a time before much literacy for regular people. If they can struggle, then intellect or education of today's very diverse, large, and sophisticated working class is not the fundamental issue.

Secondly, some of the most educated people are fools, blinded by authority rather than enlightened and critical. Society dosn't have bridges because engineers thought them up, society has engineers because for various reasons it wanted to get from here to there without going around the bay or forging a river. So in capitalism those reasons are profit driven directly or indirectly; in a communist society motivations would be for common betterment and desire. Other decisions are similar, the come not out of some abstract enlightenment, but from real conditions and where people stand and what they want etc.

Thirdly, when I think about totalitarian regimes, most gained power in times of quite rational fears: I wouldn't call Weimar Germany or 1920s Russia places where fears about where society was going were unwarrented. But neither Hitler or Stalin came to dominate because people sheepishly followed their ideas or were convinced by their perscriptions for the real fears about society, they dominated because they represented organized layers of people who had an interest in ordering society in such a way and no other social force was able to come up with an equally organized alternative.


So a legislature. Don't you see, you're just naming the same societal structures differently, but you're still singling out those with the skills and the merits as the decision makers.No, I don't think that's what I was saying at all:


But really it's just the way society is organized (reproducing itself by using private wealth and wage-labor) that creates a layer of people who need to control the larger group of people to maintain that social organization. Among those people there may be some with better qualities or more skills than others, but their mutual interest in maintaining this organization of society means they can arrange and debate and compete among themselves.You can see here that I am not naming the same societal structures differently, because I am talking about contemporary society: among those with an interest in maintaining capitalism because exploitation is how they maintain their wealth, some will have more interest or skills in selling their ideas or in managing governance, but it's that social layer of people with an interest in that kind of world that is fundamental, not ideas. So they rule not because of their ideas but because of relations in society; when we rule, we don't need some abstract level of enlightenment, we just need more practical things like a class experienced and self-reliant in struggle with some confidence to fight and strike out for their interests, rather than accommodate.

Maybe I've overstated things, I think education as a general thing is good, I think in a post revolution society, a lot of our efforts right after food and housing will be in training eachother and creating new schools etc. But IMO this will not be to make our collective rule possible or whatnot, but will be one of the outcomes of our rule... we develop ourselves based on what we want induvidually as well as what it called for collectively (where there is a general need for a skill or area of expertise). What's necissary for our rule, I think, is our own ability to organize and work together for common class goals and defense.