Is this forum representative of communism?

[tooAlive]

I ask this because I noticed something interesting as I've been discussing things with you all here.

As I have come to understand, your ideal and ultimate goal of communism is a state-less, class-less and money-less egalitarian society where everyone is equal and treated equally. No masters, no slaves -- simply equality for all.

Am I right so far?

But then I noticed that not everyone on this forum is equal. Some of you are moderators, well respected, with the ability to move, edit and delete threads (and even users) as you see fit, then there are the regular users that can post freely, albeit with no special abilities, and then you have the not-so-liked users (like myself) that are restricted -- only allowed to post in one sub-forum.

My Question -

Why not make this forum more like communism? Why not grant each user the same equal titles and abilities, including the now restricted users?

I would assume if it can work in such a small test-group such as RevLeft, it could be a sign that it's also possible on a grander scale.

Just a thought.

[ed miliband]

is this forum representative of communism? thankfully not, it's an internet forum.

[Remus Bleys]

thats a stupid idea of what communism is. Theres a great dauve quote where he says something like communism won't make people angels. I highly doubt I will stop hating everyone in communism.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The servers hosting this site are still located in areas governed by law, so the site still has to operate with that in mind. If the sever was hosted somewhere free of law all together you could perhaps get away with what you've suggested, but as it stands the people who are on the hook for this site will still be held accountable even if the intent of the site was to give the individual users total freedom.

[IBleedRed]

I don't know where the silly idea comes from, but communism isn't about absolute sameness...it's about equality with respect to ownership of the means of production (and thus access to the wealthy produced by the means of production)

[Ritzy Cat]

Communism is taking into account so much more economic, political factors, those of which are not existent on a forum...

It would be interesting, but it wouldn't really serve as an "example" of communism.

[tooAlive]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure communism has a lot to do with abolishing social classes.

And on this forum you have 3 classes:


Moderators/Admins
Regular Users
Restricted Users


And I'm pretty sure I've read a few times on here how you strive for equality as absolute as possible.

I think it would serve as a great experiment to try and put communism into action right here. Grant everyone on here the same abilities and privileges. Aren't you regular users even just a little bit tempted to have the same benefits as your fellow mods and admins?

If not, why not?

[G4b3n]

It is hard for an internet forum to reflect an entire society. I think you are asking a bit much.

[IBleedRed]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure communism has a lot to do with abolishing social classes.

And on this forum you have 3 classes:


Moderators/Admins
Regular Users
Restricted Users


And I'm pretty sure I've read a few times on here how you strive for equality as absolute as possible.

I think it would serve as a great experiment to try and put communism into action right here. Grant everyone on here the same abilities and privileges. Aren't you regular users even just a little bit tempted to have the same benefits as your fellow mods and admins?

If not, why not?

Social classes are only relevant when each wields a different level of economic power. That has absolutely nothing to do with what you're suggesting.

[tooAlive]

is this forum representative of communism? thankfully not, it's an internet forum.


thats a stupid idea of what communism is. Theres a great dauve quote where he says something like communism won't make people angels. I highly doubt I will stop hating everyone in communism.


Social classes are only relevant when each wields a different level of economic power. That has absolutely nothing to do with what you're suggesting.

Again, the forum moderators and admins have abilities that you aren't given.

This isn't an economy per se, but there are certain abilities and privileges granted to only a few members on here. Even having Restricted users is a bit puzzling to me -- if anything, I think that "class" should be removed.

[IBleedRed]

Again, the forum moderators and admins have abilities that you aren't given.

This isn't an economy per se, but there are certain abilities and privileges granted to only a few members on here. Even having Restricted users is a bit puzzling to me -- if anything, I think that "class" should be removed.
And your point is...?

I've already stated twice that communism is not about absolute "equality" absent of economic context. Do I need to say it a third time?

[Tim Cornelis]

It wouldn't work.

[Fourth Internationalist]

This is an internet forum, not society. It is designed for discussion amongst revolutionary leftists. Allowing a bunch of anticommunists to take over our discussions by role playing a communist society on here is ridiculous and isn't going to happen.

[tooAlive]

This is an internet forum, not society. It is designed for discussion amongst revolutionary leftists. Allowing a bunch of anticommunists to take over our discussions by role playing a communist society on here is ridiculous and isn't going to happen.

What happens in the real world then?

If you can't open the floodgates to a forum because antis will inevitably hijack everything and halt any meaningful exchanges from taking place, what can be said about what will happen when a global system such as communism is to take place?

Wouldn't those same people that would come on here and disrupt things be the same people that would try to halt the progress of your system, and refuse to cooperate?

How would you deal with that then?

[Remus Bleys]

What happens in the real world then?

If you can't open the floodgates to a forum because antis will inevitably hijack everything and halt any meaningful exchanges from taking place, what can be said about what will happen when a global system such as communism is to take place? You are confusing the internet with the real world now.


Wouldn't those same people that would come on here and disrupt things be the same people that would try to halt the progress of your system, and refuse to cooperate? No, because real life interests trumps being a dick on the internet.


How would you deal with that then?
Tell them to leave?

[Ele'ill]

tooalive, consider this forum a space opened for discussion about specific topics.

[Fourth Internationalist]

What happens in the real world then?

If you can't open the floodgates to a forum because antis will inevitably hijack everything and halt any meaningful exchanges from taking place, what can be said about what will happen when a global system such as communism is to take place?

Wouldn't those same people that would come on here and disrupt things be the same people that would try to halt the progress of your system, and refuse to cooperate?

How would you deal with that then?Counterrevolutionaries against the creation of communism would be stopped by a workers' state, as would enemies of the bourgeois state would be under the bourgeois state. I doubt a sort of coup-like (I know no other way to describe it) attempt to end communism will ensue in communist society, but if something like that were attempted I do not doubt that the rest of the population would be in opposition and would work against this attmept.

In short, they would be stopped like how they are stopped from overrunning this forum, by setting up things to prevent them from doing so.

[tooAlive]

You are confusing the internet with the real world now.

I would assume the same people are present in both.


Tell them to leave?

Where?

[Remus Bleys]

I would assume the same people are present in both.
Again, you are confusing the way people act on the internet with the way they act in real life.

Where?
Go somehwere else. Although that was just what I was saying. I highly doubt in communism people would not want to "cooperate" with each other, as it is the economic system that benefits them. But what do I do if I don't want to cooperate with capitalists? This problem, which I believe would be nonexistent in communism, is in capitalism, and thus is not an argument against communism.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure communism has a lot to do with abolishing social classes.

And on this forum you have 3 classes:


Moderators/Admins
Regular Users
Restricted Users



Oh god

[Zukunftsmusik]

It wouldn't work.

It works on paper, though

[Remus Bleys]

Revleft is a non-mode of production anyway so the whole point is moot.

[liberlict]

It won't happen until all the registered users attain class consciousness and smash the moderator apparatus.

[consuming negativity]

What happens in the real world then?

If you can't open the floodgates to a forum because antis will inevitably hijack everything and halt any meaningful exchanges from taking place, what can be said about what will happen when a global system such as communism is to take place?

Wouldn't those same people that would come on here and disrupt things be the same people that would try to halt the progress of your system, and refuse to cooperate?

How would you deal with that then?

"A global system such as communism" will not "take place" on a globe where only 5% of the users are communists.

That aside, there are a lot more potential consequences IRL for trying to "halt the progress of the system" than "get a few laughs at the expense of the internet commies".

[Tim Cornelis]

It works on paper, though

Maybe it could work on a very small forum.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Revleft is a non-mode of production anyway so the whole point is moot.

if anything revleft is a mode of anti-production, certainly in my case

[A Psychological Symphony]

Of course you will all shoot him down as he is a restricted member who is questioning the authenticity of your holy grail that is RevLeft, but I have also found it a bit strange that there is a heiarchy and authoritarian figures on a communist website. Moderators can infract or even ban other poster if they post something that the mod disagrees with.

Why? Especially asking the more anarchistic posters on here why nobody else is asking why a revolutionary leftist forum has a heiarchy of authority. I don't agree with his comments about classes however as that was a bit of a stretch.

[tooAlive]

Of course you will all shoot him down as he is a restricted member who is questioning the authenticity of your holy grail that is RevLeft, but I have also found it a bit strange that there is a heiarchy and authoritarian figures on a communist website. Moderators can infract or even ban other poster if they post something that the mod disagrees with.

Why? Especially asking the more anarchistic posters on here why nobody else is asking why a revolutionary leftist forum has a heiarchy of authority. I don't agree with his comments about classes however as that was a bit of a stretch.

Perhaps they're still waiting for the "moderator state" to wither away. :laugh:

[Loony Le Fist]

What happens in the real world then?

If you can't open the floodgates to a forum because antis will inevitably hijack everything and halt any meaningful exchanges from taking place, what can be said about what will happen when a global system such as communism is to take place?

Wouldn't those same people that would come on here and disrupt things be the same people that would try to halt the progress of your system, and refuse to cooperate?

How would you deal with that then?

Communism isn't about everyone having the exact same responsibilities. It's about ensuring equal accountability. It would be stupid to give everyone the same role as moderators. But we are comparing apples to oranges after all. A Internet forum is run out of the kindness of the hearts of the persons deciding to do so. You don't ask for equal say in someone else's household do you? You are comparing an entire societal system to what are just basic human boundaries.

Everyone will have different responsibilities in society under communism, that doesn't mean some people will have more power than anyone else. In certain situations yes, but not in all situations. And that is what is meant by equality. Things like voting and good accountability measures work as equalizers for power in the real world. And there are problems in voting systems, though there are improvements to make them less of an issue.

I truly feel sorry for you if you can't tell the difference between an Internet forum, and an entire society.

[Loony Le Fist]

Why not make this forum more like communism? Why not grant each user the same equal titles and abilities, including the now restricted users?


Great, so make everyone a regular member for a week.

[tooAlive]

Communism isn't about everyone having the exact same responsibilities. It's about ensuring equal accountability. It would be stupid to give everyone the same role as moderators. But we are comparing apples to oranges after all. A Internet forum is run out of the kindness of the hearts of the persons deciding to do so. You don't ask for equal say in someone else's household do you? You are comparing an entire societal system to what are just basic human boundaries.

Everyone will have different responsibilities in society under communism, that doesn't mean some people will have more power than anyone else. In certain situations yes, but not in all situations. And that is what is meant by equality. Things like voting and good accountability measures work as equalizers for power in the real world. And there are problems in voting systems, though there are improvements to make them less of an issue.

I truly feel sorry for you if you can't tell the difference between an Internet forum, and an entire society.

This forum has moderators to keep counter-revolutionaries (like myself) from creating havoc and disrupting your otherwise peaceful conversations about workers struggle. (Not that I would do that)

So you're acknowledging that a certain authority type figure is necessary to keep order. Which is why I think it's interesting that the foundation of your ideology has zero authority figures (theoretically).

How would counter-revolutionaries be dealt with in the real world? I think they'd even pose a greater problem then. There's only a handful of people on the right that even know what RevLeft is, yet moderators are needed to keep them in check. What happens when every single counter-revolutionary in the world poses an immediate threat to your movement?

[Loony Le Fist]

This forum has moderators to keep counter-revolutionaries (like myself) from creating havoc and disrupting your otherwise peaceful conversations about workers struggle. (Not that I would do that)

Like I said, forum moderators have graciously provided us a place to discuss things. You don't go to someone's house and tell them how to run things. You are already getting off on the wrong foot. Unlike being a member of society, you actually have a choice in the Internet forums you can visit.



So you're acknowledging that a certain authority type figure is necessary to keep order. Which is why I think it's interesting that the foundation of your ideology has zero authority figures (theoretically).


I am saying that some individuals are granted the role of keeping societal order. The foundation of my ideology (I can't speak for everyone here) is not that there should be zero authority. But that there must be no unjustifiable, general, or unaccountable authority. Authority must be compartmentalized and can only exist in a certain context. I'm afraid you aren't an authority over the foundations of my own personal ideology. So you aren't in a position to tell me what I believe--I get to speak for myself, thank you.


How would counter-revolutionaries be dealt with in the real world? I think they'd even pose a greater problem then. There's only a handful of people on the right that even know what RevLeft is, yet moderators are needed to keep them in check. What happens when every single counter-revolutionary in the world poses an immediate threat to your movement?

Define counter-revolutionary.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

tooAlive, it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that an internet forum isn't the same thing as a society. Why then insist on continuing as if it was?


This forum has moderators to keep counter-revolutionaries (like myself) from creating havoc and disrupting your otherwise peaceful conversations about workers struggle. (Not that I would do that)

So you're acknowledging that a certain authority type figure is necessary to keep order. Which is why I think it's interesting that the foundation of your ideology has zero authority figures (theoretically).

Well, let's try a little thought experiment. Imagine that you're living in a global communist society (that might be difficult but bear with me), and supporters of capitalism such as yourself are very much a powerless minority. Further imagine that you've set up an internet forum along with some like-minded folk as a place to discuss the restoration of capitalism.

How would you answer criticism by members of the communist majority who come onto your forums and complain that you're a bunch of hypocrites for not distributing mod and admin positions through market-like mechanisms?

Remember that in this hypothetical scenario, if you were to run your forum along market-like lines, then members of the communist majority would outnumber you and would be able to basically "buy out" you and friends, so you'd have to run things like we do here on Revleft, in a "house rules"-type fashion.


How would counter-revolutionaries be dealt with in the real world? I think they'd even pose a greater problem then.

That would depend on a number of things. Is there a popular mass movement of revolutionaries, with sufficient clout to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat? If not, then communism looks unlikely. But if the working class is sufficiently empowered to make it happen, then the counter-revolutionaries will be effectively neutralised, and will be made to answer for any wrongdoing (sabotage, terrorism etc) that they commit in the course of their reaction.

But what has that got to do with this forum?

[NGNM85]

Christ. I hope not....

[#FF0000]

I don't think it's possible to have an internet forum without admins or moderators though. There'll be administrators and moderators on the internet, even in a communist society, I'm afraid.

[NGNM85]

I don't think it's possible to have an internet forum without admins or moderators though. There'll be administrators and moderators on the internet, even in a communist society, I'm afraid.

No doubt. The problem isn' t the fact that the forum administration exists, it's how it fuctions, or doesn't, rather, as the case may be.

[#FF0000]

there'll be admins and mods who throw their weight around too much in a communist society too unfortunately.

[NGNM85]

there'll be admins and mods who throw their weight around too much in a communist society too unfortunately.

Certainly. However, I'd challenge anyone to say that this is the best we can do, with a straight face. There's a hell of a lot of room for improvement.

[Quail]

I thought this thread was going to be about whether the users on this board are representative of communists in general, but guess I was wrong.

Obviously, as has already been pointed out, internet forums and real life aren't the same thing. This forum in particular is a place for revolutionary leftists to come together and discuss things, so by its very purpose it has to be somewhat exclusive. If everyone was automatically granted admin privileges, the board would immediately descend into chaos. A fascist/troll could make an account and then ban everyone while spamming every thread with horrific porn... or something. You can't really compare the admins/mods to the bourgeoisie because we're not exploiting the labour of the regular members, either.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

It won't happen until all the registered users attain class consciousness and smash the moderator apparatus.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=1130&pictureid=11468

[#FF0000]

yo i'm gonna derail this thread and make it about my exclusion from the CU is that cool with everybody?

[Ele'ill]

there is absolutely nothing going on in the cu i'm not sure why it even exists

[Bea Arthur]

Sadly this forum too frequently is representative of the broader left, including in its covert sexism. The mods do their best to root it out, but it's still there.

[liberlict]

Sadly this forum too frequently is representative of the broader left, including in its covert sexism. The mods do their best to root it out, but it's still there.

ECONOMIC class is the focus of revolutionary leftism. It's not purported to be and never has been a feminist reading circle.

[Ele'ill]

ECONOMIC class is the focus of revolutionary leftism. It's not purported to be and never has been a feminist reading circle.

I don't know whether to thank your post or reply with something about getting rid of OI




I think the end 'feminist reading circle' makes me lean towards getting rid of OI

[liberlict]

The ignorant approach is always the best way to go, at least if we want to respect the rich traditions of communism and their strategic requirements.

[#FF0000]

ECONOMIC class is the focus of revolutionary leftism.

except that gender, race, and class are so interconnected that only the king of dummies would try to ignore all other social factors and look only at economic class.

[Alan OldStudent]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure communism has a lot to do with abolishing social classes.

And on this forum you have 3 classes:


Moderators/Admins
Regular Users
Restricted Users


And I'm pretty sure I've read a few times on here how you strive for equality as absolute as possible.

I think it would serve as a great experiment to try and put communism into action right here. Grant everyone on here the same abilities and privileges....
Hello Citizen tooAlive,


I can't escape the haunting feeling that perhaps your query was a "gotcha" type of a question. Perhaps you think you've caught all these self-rightous lefties on the horns of a dilemma that exposes our hypocrisy. However, I'll assume that this is a sincere question and try to respond to the point itself at face value.
http://alanoldstudent.nfshost.com/general_images/Dingbats/divide4.gif

At the risk of seeming a bit too pedantic, it's not correct say that "moderators/admins," "regular users," and "restricted users" are classes in the sense that Marxists or anarchists use the term. The term "class" refers to a group of people who have an essential relationship to the way the economy is organized.

"Class" does not refer to any group of people with a common characteristic. The term is first and foremost an economic term, not an arbitrary category. Mathematicians use the term "class" in a broader sense than do Marxists and anarchists. So mathematicians could talk of the class of "blue-eyed devils," meaning that logical group of devils who have blue eyes. But that's no more an economic classification than "admins," "mods" or "regular users."

For example, in a slave society, there must be slaves and slave-owners. We can say slaves and slave-owners have an essential relationship to the way the slavery system organizes the basic production and distribution of society..

Likewise, in a capitalist society, you have 2 major classes, a capitalist class and the working class. Both the capitalist class and the working class play an essential role in capitalism, and capitalism cannot exist without these classes.

The capitalist class, roughly speaking, own and control the major means of production and distribution and thus control the economy.

The working class, once again broadly speaking, sell their labor power to the capitalist class in order to make a living. These two classes are essential to capitalism, with its market and commodity production.

http://alanoldstudent.nfshost.com/general_images/Dingbats/divide4.gif
Of course, this is a bit of an oversimplification, as there are people in the society who do not fit into either one of those 2 classes neatly, and there is a bit of fuzziness around the edges of these classifications. Moreover, in all capitalist economies, there is always a large state sector and non-commodity production.

Nevertheless, the main economic activity depends upon the existence of these two classes. They have an essential relationship to the way the economy is organized. You cannot live without participating in the capitalist economy.

Marxists and anarchists contend that there is a certain level of irreconcilable differences between the interests of these 2 classes. These differences, that conflict of interests defines what class struggle is.

What communism and anarchism aim for is a society in which those contradictions have been abolished, along with classes and the economic system that spawns them. Once again, this is a bit of an oversimplification, but it gives you an idea as to why your analogy between an economic system and this forum is so flawed.

This forum is not an economy. It is not organized to create the means of survival or living for its members. Rather, it is an arena for discussion. The organizers of this forum have set up rules that govern how the form is conducted. Whether you or I agree or disagree with how the mods and admins run this forum is quite beside the point.

You and I have the ability to leave this forum without damaging our livelihood in any way at all. Really, this forum is more of a hobby than anything else. The worst injury we might suffer from being tossed out onto our tokhus one fine day for heresy is a bruised ego. The mods won't knock at your door at 3 in the morning and haul you off to undergo some hideous auto-da-fé (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_de_fe).

No doubt, the mods and admins make errors in judgment and will continue to do so in the future. I personally haven't been here long enough to see a lot of that, and if I get upset enough by what I do see when I see it, I'll just leave. I'll do what the Bible suggests and shake the dust from my sandals as I exit the village. I'd make the same suggestion to you. If you don't like the restrictions here, you can just leave too.

This forum is not the center of the universe, the internet, or even the left. It's a rather small part of the internet. It's good to have a bit of perspective and humility here.

Having said that, there are several people here on restriction from whom I feel I've learned. I'm thinking of one particular individual who I think is quite bright and quite sincere. Of course, as a Marxist, I have some fundamental disagreements with him, but I respect him a great deal, and I believe he respects me.


.....Grant everyone on here the same abilities and privileges. Aren't you regular users even just a little bit tempted to have the same benefits as your fellow mods and admins?

If not, why not?

Perhaps, Citizen tooAlive, you've never been a mod or an admin. I have. There is a fair amount of work involved in it. I just do not feel any urge to play such a role in this group. My level of commitment to this group just isn't that great. Also, I don't have any quarrels with the mods and think they're doing okay.

I enjoy coming here, lurking here, and sometimes making a contribution. I can tell you, having moderated Internet groups before, there's a lot more to it than you might think, and it's not always a great deal of fun.

In the real world, these types of Internet forums need moderators. For one thing, I'll bet my bottom dollar that there would be about 14 gazillion spam messages landing in the in-box--pitches for manhood enhancements, hot tips, Canadian pharmacies, weight loss schemes, tobacco-less electronic cigarettes, 23-year-old females who saw your profile and want to get to know you better, dispossessed widows of overthrown 3rd-world functionaries who need help moving huge fortunes to a European or American bank. Both men and women get these in their personal emails, even Viagra pitches.

Let me tell you, dozens and dozens of these arrive daily at any halfway active Internet site, and this site is active enough to attract lots of leeches thirsty for the blood of live bodies.

So no, I don't want to be an admin or a mod and I gladly forgo the "benefits," "abilities," and "privileges." I'll gladly waive the glory and headaches and let the admins and mods perform that mitzveh.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto—Violeta Parra

[NGNM85]

I thought this thread was going to be about whether the users on this board are representative of communists in general, but guess I was wrong.

Obviously, as has already been pointed out, internet forums and real life aren't the same thing. This forum in particular is a place for revolutionary leftists to come together and discuss things, so by its very purpose it has to be somewhat exclusive. If everyone was automatically granted admin privileges, the board would immediately descend into chaos. A fascist/troll could make an account and then ban everyone while spamming every thread with horrific porn... or something. You can't really compare the admins/mods to the bourgeoisie because we're not exploiting the labour of the regular members, either.

I don't think anyone besides the OP doesn't accept the fact that this is intended to be a discussion forum for radicals, and, as such, the administration restricts, or bans people who subscribe to other ideologies. I don't think anyone, again, with the exception of the OP, sees that as particularly unreasonable. The problem is that a number of individuals who are banned, or restricted are 'revolutionary leftists', as you say, oftentimes for arbitrary reasons that really have nothing to do with their ideological consistency as Marxists, or Anarchists. That is a serious problem, and something that deserves attention.

[tooAlive]

Thank you for that insightful reply, Alan.

You're absolutely right -- this forum isn't representative on an actual economy or "classes" within one. Although I still find it a bit puzzling that you all believe the real world can function smoothly without moderation, when it's so vital even in such a small place like this forum.


Perhaps, Citizen tooAlive, you've never been a mod or an admin. I have. There is a fair amount of work involved in it. I just do not feel any urge to play such a role in this group. My level of commitment to this group just isn't that great. Also, I don't have any quarrels with the mods and think they're doing okay.

I enjoy coming here, lurking here, and sometimes making a contribution. I can tell you, having moderated Internet groups before, there's a lot more to it than you might think, and it's not always a great deal of fun.

So no, I don't want to be an admin or a mod and I gladly forgo the "benefits," "abilities," and "privileges." I'll gladly waive the glory and headaches and let the admins and mods perform that mitzveh

Another excellent point and I'm really glad you brought it up.

A lot of users simply don't want to be mods or admins because of the extra responsibility associated with such a position. As regular users they can come and go as they wish, and not have to worry about the state of the forum when they're offline. That's absolutely true.

And for that very same reason, I would argue, is why "selling your labour to a capitalist" under a capitalist system is not exploitation.

Perhaps those that argue it is have never been business owners and don't know about all the responsibilities and risks involved with doing so. As employees they can go to work and forget all about it once they leave. Not so much for the business owner, who likely goes to sleep thinking about his or her business and things that can be done to make it successful. Let alone all the hard work required to get the business up in the first place.

You've already outlined some very important reasons why you wouldn't want to be a mod or admin. Simply replace mod/admin with employer, and regular user with worker.

Anyways, that's just my opinion. :)

[Venas Abiertas]

TooAlive, the reason most people in capitalist society don't become business owners is because they don't have the capital needed to start one, not because they are afraid of responsibility. Even if they save up the money to start the business, they find themselves taxed out of existence or unable to compete with big businesses, which do enjoy the complete support of the government. This will always happen in a capitalist economy, because a big business can maximize its profits more than a small one and will convert its economic power into political clout to get laws passed that favor it against its smaller and poorer competition.

As a person without much money, I am forced to labor for someone else. It's not a willful choice I make. I am driven by economic necessity to sell my skills and time to an employer. In a capitalist world, there is no alternative to this. I have a family to support. I just can't go out to live in the woods like the Unabomber, or Grizzly Dan. Even if I tried, I would probably be charged with trespassing on someone's private property, or tax evasion, or not having medical insurance, or who knows what.

Now I suppose you're going to tell me about Steve Jobs, how he had no money and he became the CEO of a mega-corporation and so I can do it too. You're going to tell me I made a conscious decision not to be a "risk-taker" and start up a venture capital firm or something.

Well, in the first place, I don't care about getting rich. I don't care if I'm successful competing against others and coming out on top of the heap. I would be much happier living in a world without poverty, crime, and environmental degradation, at least not in the levels that capitalist society creates.

In the second place, as an employee, I don't just "forget all about my work once I leave." I'm constantly thinking about my job and its requirements. I have to study to keep up my professional certifications which allow me to do my job. I have to organize the rest of my life around my work schedule. Many times I have to stay late or sacrifice a weekend in order to go to my job. In a capitalist economy I have to worry about losing my job and not being able to find another because of downturns in the economy over which I have no control. My job is on my mind probably as much or more as any other subject, and what's worse is that it's compounded with a sense of frustration over having little or no control over what happens to me there.

In addition, the big business owner lives in a world tailored to meet his/her needs. When he's not on the job, he enjoys all the advantages of living in a society that exists to satisfy him. He has access to expert medical care, a nice house and car, security in his gated community, money to buy the things he wants, to travel, to attend social events that cost money to gain entrance to, to send his kids to good schools and ensure that they live a life free from struggling just to survive. The system works for him in ways it will never work for me. He is the beneficiary of the system he helps to sustain. I am not, and this is something that occupies a lot of my time and energy when I am not on the job.

There's always this arrogant assumption on the part of pro-capitalists that we live in some sort of a "meritocracy", where those who have more deserve to have more. This is demonstrably false. If you've ever seen a business run into the ground by the stupid decisions of its owners, or ever had an idiot for a boss, you know that there are a lot more factors that constitute capitalist success than merely being smarter or harder-working than everybody else.

Anyway, in a dog-eat-dog world of capitalist competition, there will be winners and there will be losers. What exactly do you expect the losers to do? Just roll over and play dead?
That doesn't happen. In reality, some of those "losers" decide to fight back the only way they know how and this results in all kinds of social problems that have repercussions on all of us, whether we elect to "play the game" or not.

In short, the moderators of this forum are not victimizing anybody, because we do have the freedom to decide to participate here or not. We don't have the freedom to not participate in capitalism.

[motion denied]

Socialism in one forum is impossible, we should aim for permanent forum revolution.

[#FF0000]

Simply replace mod/admin with employer, and regular user with worker.

The employer/employee relationship isn't the same as the relationship between moderators, admins, and regular ol' users though, and it's tremendously lazy to try and make this point with the whole "replace this word with that" fallacy.


Perhaps those that argue it is have never been business owners and don't know about all the responsibilities and risks involved with doing so. As employees they can go to work and forget all about it once they leave. Not so much for the business owner, who likely goes to sleep thinking about his or her business and things that can be done to make it successful. Let alone all the hard work required to get the business up in the first place.That's cool. I don't buy this at all because I sure as hell am constantly thinking about my job and my income and all this, but let's just take your point at face value -- it doesn't change the fact that the boss still has unjustified power and benefits the most from the labor of others. People said this exact same thing in feudal society, talking about how the peasants had it so much easier than the nobles or the king, because they didn't have anything to worry about beyond their lot in life while the king had the whole realm to care about (poor old king!).

If power and privilege are such burdens then why not work to dismantle the system that places it all on one's shoulders?

[tooAlive]

TooAlive, the reason most people in capitalist society don't become business owners is because they don't have the capital needed to start one, not because they are afraid of responsibility. Even if they save up the money to start the business, they find themselves taxed out of existence or unable to compete with big businesses, which do enjoy the complete support of the government.

Not entirely true. If acquiring capital was the only thing keeping a worker from starting a business, he/she has many avenues to take to acquire it. Crowdfunding being one of them. You'd be surprised at the vast number of people all over the world getting the money they need to pursue their ideas or dreams every day. Don't believe me? Go on sites like Kickstarter and Indiegogo to see for yourself. This is all taking place right now under capitalism.

Also, not every "business" requires that one invest a lot of capital -- if any at all.


This will always happen in a capitalist economy, because a big business can maximize its profits more than a small one and will convert its economic power into political clout to get laws passed that favor it against its smaller and poorer competition.

When a large corporation gets favorable treatment from the government and is granted benefits that smaller businesses don't get, the market is no longer free and it stops being capitalism. You could argue that it's how capitalism is inevitably, but then I could argue that Cuba is how communism is inevitably.

Also, if that was always the case, we wouldn't see new successful companies being started every day. Look at the most successful companies today and tell me if they were all there 10 or even 5 years ago.

So even under the crony capitalism we have today, it's still very possible for the "little guy" to find success.


As a person without much money, I am forced to labor for someone else. It's not a willful choice I make. I am driven by economic necessity to sell my skills and time to an employer. In a capitalist world, there is no alternative to this. I have a family to support. I just can't go out to live in the woods like the Unabomber, or Grizzly Dan. Even if I tried, I would probably be charged with trespassing on someone's private property, or tax evasion, or not having medical insurance, or who knows what.

A lot of people would disagree with you, including myself.

I've worked minimum jobs before as well as many other people. It might be 100x harder for people in that situation, being in the "rat race" but nothing is impossible.


Now I suppose you're going to tell me about Steve Jobs, how he had no money and he became the CEO of a mega-corporation and so I can do it too. You're going to tell me I made a conscious decision not to be a "risk-taker" and start up a venture capital firm or something.


Yes.


Well, in the first place, I don't care about getting rich. I don't care if I'm successful competing against others and coming out on top of the heap. I would be much happier living in a world without poverty, crime, and environmental degradation, at least not in the levels that capitalist society creates.

Okay then, that's perfectly fine. But with all due respect, don't say "it's impossible for me to get ahead," and then contradict yourself by saying "well, it's not impossible, I just don't want to."

It's one or the other.


In the second place, as an employee, I don't just "forget all about my work once I leave." I'm constantly thinking about my job and its requirements. I have to study to keep up my professional certifications which allow me to do my job. I have to organize the rest of my life around my work schedule. Many times I have to stay late or sacrifice a weekend in order to go to my job. In a capitalist economy I have to worry about losing my job and not being able to find another because of downturns in the economy over which I have no control. My job is on my mind probably as much or more as any other subject, and what's worse is that it's compounded with a sense of frustration over having little or no control over what happens to me there.

I'm sure you work very hard. But I've never seen a worker care more about the business he works for more than the business owner himself.

Do you love your neighbors children more than your neighbors themselves?


In addition, the big business owner lives in a world tailored to meet his/her needs. When he's not on the job, he enjoys all the advantages of living in a society that exists to satisfy him. He has access to expert medical care, a nice house and car, security in his gated community, money to buy the things he wants, to travel, to attend social events that cost money to gain entrance to, to send his kids to good schools and ensure that they live a life free from struggling just to survive. The system works for him in ways it will never work for me. He is the beneficiary of the system he helps to sustain. I am not, and this is something that occupies a lot of my time and energy when I am not on the job.

We all live in the same world. The only difference is the business owner (hopefully) has more money. Which yes, makes things a lot easier. But like already mentioned before, not everyone that is born poor remains poor. And by that same token, not everyone that is rich remains rich.


There's always this arrogant assumption on the part of pro-capitalists that we live in some sort of a "meritocracy", where those who have more deserve to have more. This is demonstrably false. If you've ever seen a business run into the ground by the stupid decisions of its owners, or ever had an idiot for a boss, you know that there are a lot more factors that constitute capitalist success than merely being smarter or harder-working than everybody else.

Unfortunately, life isn't fair. Neither is an economic system like capitalism. Nobody is arguing that it is fair.


Anyway, in a dog-eat-dog world of capitalist competition, there will be winners and there will be losers. What exactly do you expect the losers to do? Just roll over and play dead?
That doesn't happen. In reality, some of those "losers" decide to fight back the only way they know how and this results in all kinds of social problems that have repercussions on all of us, whether we elect to "play the game" or not.

Absolutely. I think the losers should keep fighting back. IMO, you're really only a loser once you decide to stop fighting.


In short, the moderators of this forum are not victimizing anybody, because we do have the freedom to decide to participate here or not. We don't have the freedom to not participate in capitalism.

What about cooperatives that exist within capitalism?

There's nothing stopping a group of workers from starting their own companies and sharing the profits themselves, within capitalism. Why don't more people do it?

[liberlict]

Hello Citizen tooAlive,


I can't escape the haunting feeling that perhaps your query was a "gotcha" type of a question. Perhaps you think you've caught all these self-rightous lefties on the horns of a dilemma that exposes our hypocrisy. However, I'll assume that this is a sincere question and try to respond to the point itself at face value.
http://alanoldstudent.nfshost.com/general_images/Dingbats/divide4.gif

At the risk of seeming a bit too pedantic, it's not correct say that "moderators/admins," "regular users," and "restricted users" are classes in the sense that Marxists or anarchists use the term. The term "class" refers to a group of people who have an essential relationship to the way the economy is organized.

"Class" does not refer to any group of people with a common characteristic. The term is first and foremost an economic term, not an arbitrary category. Mathematicians use the term "class" in a broader sense than do Marxists and anarchists. So mathematicians could talk of the class of "blue-eyed devils," meaning that logical group of devils who have blue eyes. But that's no more an economic classification than "admins," "mods" or "regular users."

For example, in a slave society, there must be slaves and slave-owners. We can say slaves and slave-owners have an essential relationship to the way the slavery system organizes the basic production and distribution of society..

Likewise, in a capitalist society, you have 2 major classes, a capitalist class and the working class. Both the capitalist class and the working class play an essential role in capitalism, and capitalism cannot exist without these classes.

The capitalist class, roughly speaking, own and control the major means of production and distribution and thus control the economy.

The working class, once again broadly speaking, sell their labor power to the capitalist class in order to make a living. These two classes are essential to capitalism, with its market and commodity production.

http://alanoldstudent.nfshost.com/general_images/Dingbats/divide4.gif
Of course, this is a bit of an oversimplification, as there are people in the society who do not fit into either one of those 2 classes neatly, and there is a bit of fuzziness around the edges of these classifications. Moreover, in all capitalist economies, there is always a large state sector and non-commodity production.

Nevertheless, the main economic activity depends upon the existence of these two classes. They have an essential relationship to the way the economy is organized. You cannot live without participating in the capitalist economy.

Marxists and anarchists contend that there is a certain level of irreconcilable differences between the interests of these 2 classes. These differences, that conflict of interests defines what class struggle is.

What communism and anarchism aim for is a society in which those contradictions have been abolished, along with classes and the economic system that spawns them. Once again, this is a bit of an oversimplification, but it gives you an idea as to why your analogy between an economic system and this forum is so flawed.

This forum is not an economy. It is not organized to create the means of survival or living for its members. Rather, it is an arena for discussion. The organizers of this forum have set up rules that govern how the form is conducted. Whether you or I agree or disagree with how the mods and admins run this forum is quite beside the point.

You and I have the ability to leave this forum without damaging our livelihood in any way at all. Really, this forum is more of a hobby than anything else. The worst injury we might suffer from being tossed out onto our tokhus one fine day for heresy is a bruised ego. The mods won't knock at your door at 3 in the morning and haul you off to undergo some hideous auto-da-fé (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_de_fe).

No doubt, the mods and admins make errors in judgment and will continue to do so in the future. I personally haven't been here long enough to see a lot of that, and if I get upset enough by what I do see when I see it, I'll just leave. I'll do what the Bible suggests and shake the dust from my sandals as I exit the village. I'd make the same suggestion to you. If you don't like the restrictions here, you can just leave too.

This forum is not the center of the universe, the internet, or even the left. It's a rather small part of the internet. It's good to have a bit of perspective and humility here.

Having said that, there are several people here on restriction from whom I feel I've learned. I'm thinking of one particular individual who I think is quite bright and quite sincere. Of course, as a Marxist, I have some fundamental disagreements with him, but I respect him a great deal, and I believe he respects me.



Perhaps, Citizen tooAlive, you've never been a mod or an admin. I have. There is a fair amount of work involved in it. I just do not feel any urge to play such a role in this group. My level of commitment to this group just isn't that great. Also, I don't have any quarrels with the mods and think they're doing okay.

I enjoy coming here, lurking here, and sometimes making a contribution. I can tell you, having moderated Internet groups before, there's a lot more to it than you might think, and it's not always a great deal of fun.

In the real world, these types of Internet forums need moderators. For one thing, I'll bet my bottom dollar that there would be about 14 gazillion spam messages landing in the in-box--pitches for manhood enhancements, hot tips, Canadian pharmacies, weight loss schemes, tobacco-less electronic cigarettes, 23-year-old females who saw your profile and want to get to know you better, dispossessed widows of overthrown 3rd-world functionaries who need help moving huge fortunes to a European or American bank. Both men and women get these in their personal emails, even Viagra pitches.

Let me tell you, dozens and dozens of these arrive daily at any halfway active Internet site, and this site is active enough to attract lots of leeches thirsty for the blood of live bodies.

So no, I don't want to be an admin or a mod and I gladly forgo the "benefits," "abilities," and "privileges." I'll gladly waive the glory and headaches and let the admins and mods perform that mitzveh.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto—Violeta Parra

"Class" is an explanatory tool adduced by Aristotle 2000 years ago. The flaw in the Marxian version of history is its focus on economic class as the agent of progress. "History is all class struggles" bla bla bla. It ignores the dynamic, interactive nature of change.

[Venas Abiertas]

Don't you see what you are doing here, tooAlive? You are setting your own preferred option, capitalism, as being normative, and then insisting that everyone else go along with it.

You say that life is not fair. Do you expect the lights to come on when you flip a switch? Can you imagine if they didn't and you called the energy company and they said, "Hey, buddy, nobody ever said that life is fair." No, you expect service for the money you pay them. That's only fair, right? Now, if a huge storm just passed through and your lights go out, it might be more fair to realize that you will just have to light some candles and wait for the company to handle the problem. Either way, you base your decision on whether something is fair or not.

If you enter a business deal with a partner and he takes off with all of your startup funds, do you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Life isn't fair"? I don't think so. You take legal action, as is your right to do so.

The history of humanity is a search for a fairer way to do things. We create governments, laws, and moral values in an effort to make things more fair. The alternative is the law of the jungle. I know a lot of conservatives think they're big and bad with their four wheel drive vanity vehicles, gun collections, and pitbulls, but the truth is they wouldn't last ten minutes if the sh** really hit the fan and all law and order broke down.

So no, I don't see anything wrong with trying to make the world a fairer place. To me, it's just a matter of basic decency and respect for others and myself, because a fairer world benefits me too.

[Venas Abiertas]

Another problem I have with your thinking is your assumption that everyone has the same definition of success. You presume that all of us secretly want to be wealthy business owners, and if we don't, then what are we complaining about?

I'm not resentful because I'm not rich or don't have a business. I feel sorry for people who waste their whole lives trying to accumulate money and things. They remind me of a dog that eats until it vomits so it can go back and gorge itself again. As the current Pope asked recently, "Have you ever seen a moving van in a funeral procession?"

Now, if I could simply excuse myself from capitalism and go my own way, there wouldn't be any problem. To each his own, right? But it's not like that. The capitalist system insists that everyone participate in its "rat race". Try going and living out in the woods sometime with no income, no identification, no job (or taxes) and see how long it takes before they come and get you. Even worse, the capitalist countries (especially the US) insist that every other country in the world participates too, and if they don't, well, they can expect a few "boots on the ground" before too long.

We socialists are the "losers" in today's capitalist world, it's true. And we will keep fighting, as you yourself recommend. But not to get a bigger piece of the pie compared to everybody else. We want everybody to have a piece. We don't want to abolish effort, or hard work. There will always be challenges to meet and problems to overcome. We just think that our struggles and triumphs will be more rewarding if everybody shares them.

[liberlict]

Maybe it could work on a very small forum.

I actually think Wikipedia is a decent example of a 'commune' on the internet. Yes it lacks important ingredients that make it not really communism---it's still centrally controlled for one. But they are non profit and it's accessible by all. Edits are democratically authorized. Higher-ups are controlled by the masses rather than vice versa. If I was a communist I would be very interested in Wikipedia as a project.

[human strike]

Especially asking the more anarchistic posters on here why nobody else is asking why a revolutionary leftist forum has a heiarchy of authority.

Because it's obvious why.

[liberlict]

If you enter a business deal with a partner and he takes off with all of your startup funds, do you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Life isn't fair"?



Personally, I do. Opportunistically of course I'll take legal action if I think it's worth my time. But at no stage will I forget my mistake.

[tooAlive]

Don't you see what you are doing here, tooAlive? You are setting your own preferred option, capitalism, as being normative, and then insisting that everyone else go along with it.

You say that life is not fair. Do you expect the lights to come on when you flip a switch? Can you imagine if they didn't and you called the energy company and they said, "Hey, buddy, nobody ever said that life is fair." No, you expect service for the money you pay them. That's only fair, right? Now, if a huge storm just passed through and your lights go out, it might be more fair to realize that you will just have to light some candles and wait for the company to handle the problem. Either way, you base your decision on whether something is fair or not.

If you enter a business deal with a partner and he takes off with all of your startup funds, do you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Life isn't fair"? I don't think so. You take legal action, as is your right to do so.

The history of humanity is a search for a fairer way to do things. We create governments, laws, and moral values in an effort to make things more fair. The alternative is the law of the jungle. I know a lot of conservatives think they're big and bad with their four wheel drive vanity vehicles, gun collections, and pitbulls, but the truth is they wouldn't last ten minutes if the sh** really hit the fan and all law and order broke down.

So no, I don't see anything wrong with trying to make the world a fairer place. To me, it's just a matter of basic decency and respect for others and myself, because a fairer world benefits me too.


Another problem I have with your thinking is your assumption that everyone has the same definition of success. You presume that all of us secretly want to be wealthy business owners, and if we don't, then what are we complaining about?

I'm not resentful because I'm not rich or don't have a business. I feel sorry for people who waste their whole lives trying to accumulate money and things. They remind me of a dog that eats until it vomits so it can go back and gorge itself again. As the current Pope asked recently, "Have you ever seen a moving van in a funeral procession?"

Now, if I could simply excuse myself from capitalism and go my own way, there wouldn't be any problem. To each his own, right? But it's not like that. The capitalist system insists that everyone participate in its "rat race". Try going and living out in the woods sometime with no income, no identification, no job (or taxes) and see how long it takes before they come and get you. Even worse, the capitalist countries (especially the US) insist that every other country in the world participates too, and if they don't, well, they can expect a few "boots on the ground" before too long.

We socialists are the "losers" in today's capitalist world, it's true. And we will keep fighting, as you yourself recommend. But not to get a bigger piece of the pie compared to everybody else. We want everybody to have a piece. We don't want to abolish effort, or hard work. There will always be challenges to meet and problems to overcome. We just think that our struggles and triumphs will be more rewarding if everybody shares them.

You've got me all wrong. I don't want to force anyone to do anything. If you don't want to be a capitalist don't be one.

You'll still have to work to provide for yourself or your family. Did you assume that would be any different under communism?

I'd also like for everyone to be able to live a better life. I truly do. But I can't support your movement, not because of selfish self-interest, but because I believe that in practice, the transition into the system you advocate for will inevitably lead to totalitarian governments, as it has happened time and time again.

It also goes without saying that our markets today are not truly free, and we don't have true "capitalism" as we would like. You're right, today, government and big business go hand in hand to keep the little guys out. I'm against that. And again, I can't support your movement because today, the so-called "left" makes that problem worse.

You sound like a very kind-hearted individual and I commend you for that. I'm sure that we would agree on many things in terms of what we'd like the world to be like. But my parents grew up in a country where your "ideals" were shoved down their throats, and to this day they continue to do so. All these so-called "socialist" governments have done nothing more than to keep their poor, poorer.

What system do I want? The one that allows each and every person the same opportunities to prosper and use their God-given abilities to their fullest potential. Any system or ideal that infringes upon or limits those abilites is one I cannot support. You may not like capitalism, but to date, it's the closes thing we have that lets us accomplish that.

[#FF0000]

The one that allows each and every person the same opportunities to prosper and use their God-given abilities to their fullest potential

Yo we can clearly see that capitalism doesn't do that, though. If you're born in the wrong place, as the wrong gender, or are just plain unlucky, you can work as hard as you want and you will never, ever see wealth or power -- because wealth and power concentrate at the top into fewer and fewer hands who will go all out to make sure the game is rigged in their favor.

[IBleedRed]

I'd also like for everyone to be able to live a better life. I truly do. But I can't support your movement, not because of selfish self-interest, but because I believe that in practice, the transition into the system you advocate for will inevitably lead to totalitarian governments, as it has happened time and time again.


Explain

[Sinister Intents]

You've got me all wrong. I don't want to force anyone to do anything. If you don't want to be a capitalist don't be one.

You'll still have to work to provide for yourself or your family. Did you assume that would be any different under communism?

Of course people will still have to work, but it will be to provide for all, not just themselves and their 'family.'


I'd also like for everyone to be able to live a better life. I truly do. But I can't support your movement, not because of selfish self-interest, but because I believe that in practice, the transition into the system you advocate for will inevitably lead to totalitarian governments, as it has happened time and time again.[/QUOTE]

If you'd like everyone to have a better life then why can't you see socialism? Socialism will not lead to those things, if you're evidencing human nature here or state capitalist nations you're wrong. In no was has socialism ever lead to a totalitarian government, socialism seeks to tear governments and states down. All of the so called socialist states were not socialist or communist at all because class struggle still existed in those states and so persisted capitalism.


It also goes without saying that our markets today are not truly free, and we don't have true "capitalism" as we would like. You're right, today, government and big business go hand in hand to keep the little guys out. I'm against that. And again, I can't support your movement because today, the so-called "left" makes that problem worse.

Laissez Faire capitalism would fail rapidly, state intervention helps keep capitalism afloat. The left doesn't make the problem worse, I don't see how. Elaborate on these points


You sound like a very kind-hearted individual and I commend you for that. I'm sure that we would agree on many things in terms of what we'd like the world to be like. But my parents grew up in a country where your "ideals" were shoved down their throats, and to this day they continue to do so. All these so-called "socialist" governments have done nothing more than to keep their poor, poorer.

Socialist ideals in Cuba are not truly socialist ideas, they're distorted. Cuba is very capitalist, and socialism does not exist if the state exists. The whole idea of a socialist government is an oxymoron. So you really have no reason to hate socialism just because your parents endured capitalism in Cuba.


What system do I want? The one that allows each and every person the same opportunities to prosper and use their God-given abilities to their fullest potential. Any system or ideal that infringes upon or limits those abilites is one I cannot support. You may not like capitalism, but to date, it's the closes thing we have that lets us accomplish that.

The system that allows every person the same opportunities and to work and live to their full potential is socialism. God-given rights? How can these exist if their is no god? In no way is capitalism anywhere near close to accomplishing what you're looking for. As a business owner myself competition has been very brutal, and if anything I've become significantly poorer because of this business. The system also punishes for stupid shit like you get pulled over for speeding and you get a hefty fine.

[tooAlive]

Explain

First of all, I don't see how you expect to transition directly from capitalism to communism in one go.

There has to be a transition.

It is in this transition where most totalitarian governments have been born. History hasn't shown to prove otherwise either.

So like I've said a few times already, unless there is a massive world-wide consciousness shift, communist wonderlands will be limited to exist only in ones imagination.

[Remus Bleys]

History couldn't have shown anything about a transistion from capitalism to socialism because it hasn't happened yet.

[tooAlive]

If you'd like everyone to have a better life then why can't you see socialism? Socialism will not lead to those things, if you're evidencing human nature here or state capitalist nations you're wrong. In no was has socialism ever lead to a totalitarian government, socialism seeks to tear governments and states down. All of the so called socialist states were not socialist or communist at all because class struggle still existed in those states and so persisted capitalism.

Socialist ideals in Cuba are not truly socialist ideas, they're distorted. Cuba is very capitalist, and socialism does not exist if the state exists. The whole idea of a socialist government is an oxymoron. So you really have no reason to hate socialism just because your parents endured capitalism in Cuba.

It's going to be hard for us to continue debating because our perception of reality is incredibly different.

Everything good in the world = socialism, and everything bad = capitalism.

You have this holy view of socialism that nothing can taint it. And every other failed socialist state (yes, socialist state) in history like Cuba, North Korea, USSR, ect.. Are not classified as truly socialist, and labeled as capitalist.

Disregarding the fact that those countries praised and worshiped Marx, Lenin and the others as much as you all do.

Any time an example is brought up as to why socialism has failed in a country, your knee-jerk reaction is to say "Oh, but that's not true socialism -- it's distorted."

A socialist government is most certainly not an oxymoron, as much as you would like to believe. A socialist government in today's world tries to take control of as much of the means of production as it possibly can. This includes taking over private companies, or simply getting in bed with the owners of said companies.

That's socialism in the 21st century.

You have countries like Venezuela, where the president and his comrades are getting rich off the countries resources. Cuba is exploiting its people with a double currency, and now plans to sell them cars at over $200,000 each. Ect ect ect...

They all claim to be socialist.

You claim they're capitalist.

By that definition, the governments of Lenin and Stalin were also capitalist. I can't advocate for your socialism because there has never been anything close to the socialism you advocate for! It's all theories. They've been tried, and time and time again have failed. You don't classify them as failures, you classify them as capitalism. Any failed aspect of socialism isn't really socialism, it's capitalism.

I can't continue to argue with that willful ignorance and blindness to reality. No offense.

I'm sure you're all very kind and noble people. Really. But even today, people are starving because so called "socialist" governments have their people exploited and lied to. You shrug them off as capitalist and continue to praise the same ideology they claim to follow.

But of course, you don't see the hundreds of rescue missions being conducted by capitalists to help people in those other countries. Relief efforts to the Philippines for example, after their most recent catastrophe.

You only see the times injustices have been committed by a few, simply to obtain a profit. Capitalism is evil!

No, capitalism isn't the problem. The problem is greed.

And it's the same problem that plagued every failed socialist government to date. Yes, they were socialist. They decided to follow Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, or whoever -- I'll call them socialists.

[Sinister Intents]

It's going to be hard for us to continue debating because our perception of reality is incredibly different.


Not really comrade, we can debate anything. Don't expect everyone to agree with you or share all of your beliefs or many or even a few.



Everything good in the world = socialism, and everything bad = capitalism.


not really... Good and Bad are subjective and people have different perceptions of good and bad.



You have this holy view of socialism that nothing can taint it. And every other failed socialist state (yes, socialist state) in history like Cuba, North Korea, USSR, ect.. Are not classified as truly socialist, and labeled as capitalist.


Holy? I am not holy nor do I believe socialism to be holy, and socialism has been tainted by that of the DPRK, Cuba, the PRC, Viet Nam. By Stalin, by Hoxha, et cetera. They are capitalist because of the existence of an exploited proletariat, the existence of class struggle within those nations. Indeed Socialist State is an oxymoron because socialism is the absence of state because states are tools of class rule, and the socialists seek to eliminate unnatural hierarchy.



Disregarding the fact that those countries praised and worshiped Marx, Lenin and the others as much as you all do.


Yeah they praised them for the same reasons those in the USA praise that white supremacist asshole Abraham Lincoln. They use these people as icons to blind the masses much the same way religion uses its icons, and they get them while they're young. They create religious patriots who are blind to the truth and bleet like sheep at what they're told is bad.



Any time an example is brought up as to why socialism has failed in a country, your knee-jerk reaction is to say "Oh, but that's not true socialism -- it's distorted."


That's because socialism hasn't existed for thousands of years comrade. People once lived in primitive communist societies.



A socialist government is most certainly not an oxymoron, as much as you would like to believe. A socialist government in today's world tries to take control of as much of the means of production as it possibly can. This includes taking over private companies, or simply getting in bed with the owners of said companies.


It is an oxymoron, so see above. Those so called socialist governments are state capitalist governments. Look at the definition of capitalism and you'll see the parallels.



That's socialism in the 21st century.


Not really.



You have countries like Venezuela, where the president and his comrades are getting rich off the countries resources. Cuba is exploiting its people with a double currency, and now plans to sell them cars at over $200,000 each. Ect ect ect...


That's capitalism comrade.



They all claim to be socialist.

You claim they're capitalist.


That is because they are capitalist, and you gave evidence in your previous statement of how they're capitalist.



By that definition, the governments of Lenin and Stalin were also capitalist. I can't advocate for your socialism because there has never been anything close to the socialism you advocate for! It's all theories. They've been tried, and time and time again have failed. You don't classify them as failures, you classify them as capitalism. Any failed aspect of socialism isn't really socialism, it's capitalism.


Indeed they were capitalist. Socialism cannot exist in a globalised capitalist world because it gets smothered, crushed. It's not all theories, there is lots of practice that works.



I can't continue to argue with that willful ignorance and blindness to reality. No offense.


Willful ignorance and blindness?



I'm sure you're all very kind and noble people. Really. But even today, people are starving because so called "socialist" governments have their people exploited and lied to. You shrug them off as capitalist and continue to praise the same ideology they claim to follow.


In no way are these socialist nations socialist. They're only socialist by name and they use the rhetoric against the proletariat.



But of course, you don't see the hundreds of rescue missions being conducted by capitalists to help people in those other countries. Relief efforts to the Philippines for example, after their most recent catastrophe.


Rescue fucking missions? Capitalists only assist or work with things they can manipulate and profit off of. It's not about saving or helping people, the system is solely about profit and maintaining profit. Regular workers are helping the people not the capitalists, the capitalists are parasites.



You only see the times injustices have been committed by a few, simply to obtain a profit. Capitalism is evil!

No, capitalism isn't the problem. The problem is greed.


Capitalism is indeed very evil! Through our education systems children are raised to see capitalism as normal and they're trained to be good, greedy little cogs for the machine. They're blinded for profit and turned into machines that create profit. They sell their labor to the capitalists, all for a shitty wage that barely keeps them afloat. Humans maybe naturally greedy, but they're also altruistic. It's completely normal, and many animals are this way.



And it's the same problem that plagued every failed socialist government to date. Yes, they were socialist. They decided to follow Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, or whoever -- I'll call them socialists.



Socialism can't exist as a government, nation, or state, and socialism hasn't existed yet. Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky are socialists of course, but we learn from what they've given and we add onto that. I follow the beliefs of Kropotkin, Goldman, Bakunin, and other socialists who've made so many wonderful contributions to socialist theory and practice.

[tooAlive]

Again, we go back to the "that's not really socialism" debate.

I can't debate that, as it literally serves as an excuse for everything. You and I both have very different definitions of socialism. And that's fine, there's no reason for us all to believe the same thing.

I base my opinions based simply on what I see around me. At a certain point, you have to look at history and accept that those failed states were indeed reflections of your ideology put in practice.

We have a world with many different countries. Saying they're all capitalist, regardless of their economic system is a bit naive.

[Sinister Intents]

Again, we go back to the "that's not really socialism" debate.

I can't debate that, as it literally serves as an excuse for everything. You and I both have very different definitions of socialism. And that's fine, there's no reason for us all to believe the same thing.

I base my opinions based simply on what I see around me. At a certain point, you have to look at history and accept that those failed states were indeed reflections of your ideology put in practice.

We have a world with many different countries. Saying they're all capitalist, regardless of their economic system is a bit naive.

Socialism is a bit of a spectrum, but the definition here is pretty constant. You seem to be like my father and when I try to explain socialism all you see is capitalism because you can't look past capitalism. I base my opinions on what I see around me as well, and what I see is globalized capitalism and conditions worsening everywhere it seems. Capitalism isn't a progressive force and encompasses the whole global economy. I'm sorry you can't see that the Soviet Union isn't socialism in practice, that the DPRK isn't socialism in practice, Cuba most certainly isn't socialism in practice, and China is most certainly not socialist in practic. Wage labor exists in all of these countries, and there is class struggle in this nation. A tiny bougeoisie with the proletariat majority toiling and suffering below.

[tooAlive]

I'd say your definition of capitalism is off -- just as off as my preconceived definition of socialism.

If your socialism has never existed, then neither have the free markets I advocate for.

So we can't use real-life examples anymore to debate our points, as neither of the systems we advocate for have ever been implemented. All our debates would have to be purely hypothetical.

[#FF0000]

I base my opinions based simply on what I see around me. At a certain point, you have to look at history and accept that those failed states were indeed reflections of your ideology put in practice.

Yeah? That's the only possible way to interpret what happened in these societies? They couldn't be the result of failed or hopelessly isolated revolutions?


We have a world with many different countries. Saying they're all capitalist, regardless of their economic system is a bit naive.

Oh, but we call them capitalist because we're taking into account their state-capitalist economic system.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Another head vs brick wall debate with someone who thinks we're all naive and silly for wanting any alternative to the 'fair' and 'natural' capitalist system.

To address the original post question...not any more than facebook represents society as a whole; this is an internet forum, not a elaborate sociological experiment

[Tim Cornelis]

Again, we go back to the "that's not really socialism" debate.

You have a wrong perception of the debate. The Marxist proposition is not that the USSR, etc., were not "really socialism" or not "true socialism" they were not socialist period. The Marxist method is an objective method that analyses social structures through the analytical tool of materialism. Thus, we analyse different stages of human development based on how their social structures developed in accordance with the productive forces of society. We then see that the material conditions determine the economic structure and the judicial and political structure (superstructure) is erected upon this one. Social consciousness is derived from the economic structure and there is a reciprocal and reinforcing relationship between them. Applying this materialist tool we find that a new mode of production developed from the 16th or 17th century onward in Europe resulting from proto-industrialisation and ultimately the new mode of production arose definitely with the Industrial Revolution. The structure or mode of production that thereupon existed is what we call capitalism. This mode of production existed unaltered under state management in the USSR.

Our perception of socialism is not an ideological construct but based on materialist analysis, whereas you perceive our perception of socialism to be an ideological construct. Socialism is an essentially contested concept so we can endlessly debate what it means but the manner in which someone defines capitalism and socialism is irrelevant if they are both variations of the same mode of production.

The reason your notion of free markets hasn't exist and socialism hasn't existed are both material.


I can't debate that, as it literally serves as an excuse for everything. You and I both have very different definitions of socialism. And that's fine, there's no reason for us all to believe the same thing.

I base my opinions based simply on what I see around me. At a certain point, you have to look at history and accept that those failed states were indeed reflections of your ideology put in practice.

We have a world with many different countries. Saying they're all capitalist, regardless of their economic system is a bit naive.

You have yet to demonstrate that the failures of statecapitalist regimes reflect on a socialist society. You can certainly debate that, but you haven't. In fact, your response is a knee jerk reaction because you assume that the failure of self-proclaimed socialist states must necessary reflect on socialist societies -- even if those self-proclaimed socialist society differed more from socialist society than they do from liberal capitalism. You have neither demonstrated that any attempt at socialism will result in state-capitalism or that the reasons state-capitalism failed will exist in socialism and therefore cause socialism to fail.

They are capitalist precisely because their economic system.

[Sinister Intents]

I'd say your definition of capitalism is off -- just as off as my preconceived definition of socialism.

If your socialism has never existed, then neither have the free markets I advocate for.

So we can't use real-life examples anymore to debate our points, as neither of the systems we advocate for have ever been implemented. All our debates would have to be purely hypothetical.

I haven't even really defined these broad terms. I do not need to define them because they can be both defined in many ways. Indeed, your idea of what socialism is off. Socialism existed in the past with primitive communist societies, so socialism has existed in the past. Also the idea of a free market it utopian and impossible, free markets are impossible. I can give evidence of socialism being implemented for short periods of time within the last two centuries. The Paris Commune, Makhno's Free Territory, Anarchist Catalonia. They were all crushed because of the forces of capitalism. Need other examples? I can provide them. I may not be too well versed in history and related subjects but I do feel I know enough at the moment.

[tooAlive]

Then why do you still identify your movement with symbols from those capitalist countries, like the hammer and sickle popularized by the Soviet Union?

Why do you all still follow and praise men like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, ect.. If they were all capitalists?

Also, why do you use the words socialism and communism interchangeably? Doesn't it make more sense to refer to the transition between capitalism to communism as socialism?

[Sinister Intents]

Then why do you still identify your movement with symbols from those capitalist countries, like the hammer and sickle popularized by the Soviet Union?

Why do you all still follow and praise men like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, ect.. If they were all capitalists?

Also, why do you use the words socialism and communism interchangeably?

Because these symbols existed before the Soviet Union I believe, and just because the hammer and sickle was used by the Soviets does not mean it doesn't apply to communists. Plus there exist many alternatives to the hammer and sickle. I don't think the USSR popularized the hammer and sickle, they do not have a monopoly on socialist symbolism. We follow the ideas they gave, less Stalin because Stalin was not a socialist. Plus their are so many other socialist philosphers and other socialists who contributed so much to socialism, i.e. Bakunin, Proudhon, et cetera. Communism and socialism are broad terms, they're not necesarily being used interchangeably.

[tooAlive]

Because these symbols existed before the Soviet Union I believe, and just because the hammer and sickle was used by the Soviets does not mean it doesn't apply to communists. Plus there exist many alternatives to the hammer and sickle. I don't think the USSR popularized the hammer and sickle, they do not have a monopoly on socialist symbolism.

Cool, just wondering. I'd change em' personally. Too much negativity associated with them.

Much like if someone were to say the Nazis weren't representative of true Nationalist ideals, and subsequently brand their group with the swastika.


We follow the ideas they gave, less Stalin because Stalin was not a socialist. Plus their are so many other socialist philosphers and other socialists who contributed so much to socialism, i.e. Bakunin, Proudhon, et cetera. Communism and socialism are broad terms, they're not necesarily being used interchangeably.

So you all acknowledge that the biggest contributors to your movement were in fact, capitalists? And fine -- I'll let you exclude Stalin. I'll also disregard the other revolutionaries that have his avatar and claim to follow him.

[Sinister Intents]

Cool, just wondering. I'd change em' personally. Too much negativity associated with them.

Much like if someone were to say the Nazis weren't representative of true Nationalist ideals, and subsequently brand their group with the swastika.



So you all acknowledge that the biggest contributors to your movement were in fact, capitalists? And fine -- I'll let you exclude Stalin. I'll also disregard the other revolutionaries that have his avatar and claim to follow him.

I think they're fine, the encircled A is fine. All socialist symbols are fine to me. The swastika will forever be tainted and be a symbol of nazism unfortunately, their are differentiations such as the Hindu swastika, and other religious symbols. No, Lenin was socialist though at least in my opinion. State capitalist dictators contributed little to nothing to socialism because they weren't socialist. Capitalists have contributed to capitalism. Who do you consider socialist? Do you consider any of the people who contributed to anarchism socialist?

[tooAlive]

Who do you consider socialist?

Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Pol Pot, Fidel, Che, Chavez and Maduro. There's more, but those are just some off the top on my head.


Do you consider any of the people who contributed to anarchism socialist?

No.

I consider anarchism to be closer to pure capitalism than socialism.

[Sinister Intents]

Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Pol Pot, Fidel, Che, Chavez and Maduro. There's more, but those are just some off the top on my head.



No.

I consider anarchism to be closer to pure capitalism than socialism.

Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky definitely are socialists. The others you mentioned Aren't socialist, they defended and supported state capitalist nations and used socialist rhetoric for their own means.

How the honest FUCK is anarchism anywhere close to pure capitalism???

[tooAlive]

How the honest FUCK is anarchism anywhere close to pure capitalism???

No central authority figure or entity, no trade regulations, no market regulations, ect..

Under anarchy there's no authority. Nothing is to stop a person from acquiring capital and freely trading it. And by capital I mean material things with perceived value, in case there would be no currency.

Nothing is to stop citizens from taking over property, and keeping others out. Nothing would also prevent others from overthrowing that person from that property. Again, no authority figures.

At least under capitalism there would be a (ideally) small state that upholds private property rights, ect..

Personally, I view socialism as a polar opposite to anarchism. Communism in my opinion, would according to your theory, be a version of anarchy in which a point was made to eliminate the monetary system.

[Sinister Intents]

No central authority figure or entity, no trade regulations, no market regulations, ect...

There is no need for a central authority under anarchism, it would be up to the community, commune, collective, et cetera to determine trade and regulate things produced. To each according to there ability, to each according to their need. This quote from Marx shows that their would be no need for money because people will be able to work freely to their ability and receive according to their need. People under anarchism will work under free association rather than competition, and people can and will work voluntarily.


Under anarchy there's no authority. Nothing is to stop a person from acquiring capital and freely trading it. And by capital I mean material things with perceived value, in case there would be no currency.

Under anarchy their is no authority because anarchists and communists seek to eliminate needless and parasitic hierarchy. Money will be eliminated under anarchism, see above. Under anarchy things are collectively owned, i.e. land, factories, and natural resources. Their is no reason for any one to sieze control of anything because things are collectively owned and people can cooperate freely.


Nothing is to stop citizens from taking over property, and keeping others out. Nothing would also prevent others from overthrowing that person from that property. Again, no authority figures.

Everything would be collectively owned so the idea of private property is eliminated. If you try to take someones personal property that is theft, theft is wrong. If you invade someones home and prevent them from entering it that is wrong and an invasion of propery. I would expect under anarchy crimes would be handled by a communal police force to take care of theft and other crimes. Also under anarchy nothing would be preventing you from kicking the person out of your house. We have all the technology today that would make anarchy very possible and very liveable.


At least under capitalism there would be a (ideally) small state that upholds private property rights, ect..

Private property is theft, I think you're mixing up personal and private property. Capitalism upholds the private property of the few because it is profitable.


Personally, I view socialism as a polar opposite to anarchism. Communism in my opinion, would according to your theory, be a version of anarchy in which a point was made to eliminate the monetary system.

Anarchism does equate socialism, and indeed communism and anarchism share a lot in common. They both seek the same end results, a stateless, classless, moneyless society.

[tooAlive]

I suppose you've all adopted a different flavor of anarchy as the one I'm familiar with.

I know more than of couple of "anarchists" that are extremely anti-socialist, pro-individual, ect.. They simply want to get rid of government to govern themselves. Every man for himself, sorta.

Your version puts the commune ahead of everything, the version I'm familiar with puts the individual above all. I suppose that's what you'd call left-anrachist and right-anarchist.

I agree with neither.

[Sinister Intents]

I suppose you've all adopted a different flavor of anarchy as the one I'm familiar with.

I know more than of couple of "anarchists" that are extremely anti-socialist, pro-individual, ect.. They simply want to get rid of government to govern themselves. Every man for himself, sorta.

Your version puts the commune ahead of everything, the version I'm familiar with puts the individual above all.

I agree with neither.

I'm an anarcho-communist technically. All anarchists may have different views, but all true anarchists agree on roughly the same points. If you're speaking of anarcho-capitalists, they're not anarchists at all, they're capitalists and what they want would render the world in a very fucked up state. Individual anarchism is fine, but if they're anti-socialist I don't see how they can be considered an anarchist, if they're against feminism I do not consider them an anarchist. I've met satanists who consider themselves anarchists, but they're the most hypocritical reactionaries I've met. Fuck them. I've also met plenty of so called anarchists who know nothing of the theory and have no idea what real anarchism is.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Then why do you still identify your movement with symbols from those capitalist countries, like the hammer and sickle popularized by the Soviet Union?

Why do you all still follow and praise men like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, ect.. If they were all capitalists?

Also, why do you use the words socialism and communism interchangeably? Doesn't it make more sense to refer to the transition between capitalism to communism as socialism?

I wasn't aware that all of us praised the "great men" like Lenin and so on. There are plenty of people on the left who not only don't praise them but actively criticise them - something you'd perhaps know if you'd bothered to look a little more deeply into the various flavours of "left" movements. Besides, even those who do follow them might make a distinction between the ideas these men put forth and what they actually did in practise - hardly an unbelievable concept. There are plenty of people who aren't comfortable even with describing themselves as Marxists given that that can imply being a "follower" of Marx as if he was an old testament prophet or something (not that that behavior is entirely uncommon) and might prefer some other way of describing their outlook.

In regards to the symbols (the hammer and sickle etcetera) again, there are plenty of movements that don't use those symbols, although I suppose there's often enough some similarity. And again, it's possible to separate what the symbols mean from their usage in the former USSR and suchlike - originally it was a symbol of working-class unity, specifically between urban industrial workers and rural agricultural labourers. Although it originated in the Russian Revolution, it has been adopted since by many other movements and by no means can be said to be solely a symbol of any one revolution.

Not all of use use socialism and communism interchangeably either. Generally speaking, the separation of modes of production into capitalism > socialism (under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat) > Full communism is a view that tends to be held by those heavily influenced by the writing of Lenin - or the writing of those influenced by Lenin, in fact. As far as I understand it, Karl Marx and indeed most communists in the 19th and first decade of the 20th centuries tended to use the terms fairly interchangeably, with "communism" being coined to refer to Marx's brand of "scientific socialism" As usual, there's a lot of debate in left wing circles about all of this but ultimately it depends who you're talking to, I suppose.

[tooAlive]

No, I wasn't referring to anarcho-capitalists. I mean full-on anarchists that simply don't buy into the communal aspect of communism.

Again, I'm not anarcho anything.

I believe we need a state to keep things in order.

[Sinister Intents]

No, I wasn't referring to anarcho-capitalists. I mean full-on anarchists that simply don't buy into the communal aspect of communism.

Again, I'm not anarcho anything.

I believe we need a state to keep things in order.

You're really not giving too much information of these so called 'full-on anarchists' How do you know they're anarchists? Because they're antigovernment? Simply being antigovernment does not make one an anarchist.
States are hierachal instruments of class rule simply put. You do not need a state to keep order at all, that is a logical fallacy, the idea that you need a state or government to maintain order.

Perhaps you should read this:
Anarchism (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1910/britannica.htm) for Encyclopedia Britannica
this:
The State: It’s Historic Role (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1896/state/index.htm)

[tooAlive]

You're really not giving too much information of these so called 'full-on anarchists' How do you know they're anarchists? Because they're antigovernment? Simply being antigovernment does not make one an anarchist.
States are hierachal instruments of class rule simply put. You do not need a state to keep order at all, that is a logical fallacy, the idea that you need a state or government to maintain order.

That was my original point when starting this thread. ;)

You believe authority is required to maintain order in a small forum, but not in the real world with 7 billion people.

[tooAlive]

I wasn't aware that all of us praised the "great men" like Lenin and so on. There are plenty of people on the left who not only don't praise them but actively criticise them - something you'd perhaps know if you'd bothered to look a little more deeply into the various flavours of "left" movements. Besides, even those who do follow them might make a distinction between the ideas these men put forth and what they actually did in practise - hardly an unbelievable concept. There are plenty of people who aren't comfortable even with describing themselves as Marxists given that that can imply being a "follower" of Marx as if he was an old testament prophet or something (not that that behavior is entirely uncommon) and might prefer some other way of describing their outlook.

In regards to the symbols (the hammer and sickle etcetera) again, there are plenty of movements that don't use those symbols, although I suppose there's often enough some similarity. And again, it's possible to separate what the symbols mean from their usage in the former USSR and suchlike - originally it was a symbol of working-class unity, specifically between urban industrial workers and rural agricultural labourers. Although it originated in the Russian Revolution, it has been adopted since by many other movements and by no means can be said to be solely a symbol of any one revolution.

Not all of use use socialism and communism interchangeably either. Generally speaking, the separation of modes of production into capitalism > socialism (under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat) > Full communism is a view that tends to be held by those heavily influenced by the writing of Lenin - or the writing of those influenced by Lenin, in fact. As far as I understand it, Karl Marx and indeed most communists in the 19th and first decade of the 20th centuries tended to use the terms fairly interchangeably, with "communism" being coined to refer to Marx's brand of "scientific socialism" As usual, there's a lot of debate in left wing circles about all of this but ultimately it depends who you're talking to, I suppose.

Forgive me for not being well versed on every flavour of leftism available.

It's becoming very evident that there's even quite a bit of disagreements among revolutionary leftists themselves. That's another reason why I don't see much attraction in the politics of the left -- too many contradictions and disagreements from within.

[Sinister Intents]

That was my original point when starting this thread. ;)

You believe authority is required to maintain order in a small forum, but not in the real world with 7 billion people.

I see, well an internet forum isn't representative of the world. It's representative of the tiny population that uses this website, and this tiny population of people who use RevLeft would like it to stay a great place to use and talk of things. Plus other people have answered your question before me, not necesarily the same way, but I've seen others answer it.
as Ethics Gradient said:

The servers hosting this site are still located in areas governed by law, so the site still has to operate with that in mind. If the sever was hosted somewhere free of law all together you could perhaps get away with what you've suggested, but as it stands the people who are on the hook for this site will still be held accountable even if the intent of the site was to give the individual users total freedom.
and as Link says:


This is an internet forum, not society. It is designed for discussion amongst revolutionary leftists. Allowing a bunch of anticommunists to take over our discussions by role playing a communist society on here is ridiculous and isn't going to happen.

Also indeed the world is capable of being governed by the people in their communities. I and other people have already answered this though.
again...
Perhaps you should read this:
Anarchism (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1910/britannica.htm) for Encyclopedia Britannica
this:
The State: It’s Historic Role (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1896/state/index.htm)

[Sinister Intents]

Forgive me for not being well versed on every flavour of leftism available.

It's becoming very evident that there's even quite a bit of disagreements among revolutionary leftists themselves. That's another reason why I don't see much attraction in the politics of the left -- too many contradictions and disagreements from within.

Actually I notice a lot of RevLefters agreeing, but discussing or debating many different things. Their really aren't that many disagreements, contradictions? I see none. Also in no way is this forum representative of the revolutionary left or the left for that matter.

[tooAlive]

I see, well an internet forum isn't representative of the world. It's representative of the tiny population that uses this website, and this tiny population of people who use RevLeft would like it to stay a great place to use and talk of things. Plus other people have answered your question before me, not necesarily the same way, but I've seen others answer it.
as Ethics Gradient said:

and as Link says:



Also indeed the world is capable of being governed by the people in their communities. I and other people have already answered this though.
again...
Perhaps you should read this:
Anarchism (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1910/britannica.htm) for Encyclopedia Britannica
this:
The State: It’s Historic Role (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1896/state/index.htm)

Yes, I did read all those things.

I don't agree with any of them though.

You can't really argue that a small group needs moderation, but yet imply the entire world doesn't. Simple as that.

Although I wouldn't expect any of you to actually say that, as it discredits your entire ideology. I know you have to argue it, but none of those arguments are nearly as convincing enough to prove you can have all 7 billion of Earth's inhabitants operate in complete unity without the need for moderation. You admit it's essential to keeping the order here, but try to paint the forum as "not representative of the real world."

[tooAlive]

Actually I notice a lot of RevLefters agreeing, but discussing or debating many different things. Their really aren't that many disagreements, contradictions? I see none. Also in no way is this forum representative of the revolutionary left or the left for that matter.

Well, I've seen some of you support Stalin, others denounce him.

Some of you support a marxist-state, others don't.

Some of you support revolution by violence, other's don't.

Some believe in having no authority figures, yet admit they're essential on some scenarios.

Some say stealing is wrong, yet condone the stealing of private property and capital from the capitalists.

Just some contradictions I've notices.

[Sinister Intents]

Yes, I did read all those things.

I don't agree with any of them though.

You can't really argue that a small group needs moderation, but yet imply the entire world doesn't. Simple as that.

Although I wouldn't expect any of you to actually say that, as it discredits your entire ideology. I know you have to argue it, but none of those arguments are nearly as convincing enough to prove you can have all 7 billion of Earth's inhabitants operate in complete unity without the need for moderation.

Somehow I doubt you read those... or a whole lot of other leftist literature. Perhaps you've read some things, but you don't come across as someone whose done a lot of reading of leftist literature. If you've read them read them again, reading something again is easy, is it not?
This is a fucking internet forum called RevLeft, and is tiny in comparison to the much larger and more popular reactionary internet forums like (s)CumFront. It doesn't discredit leftist ideology at all, I fail to see how a tiny internet forum being moderated by elected individuals contradicts leftist politics. People will be able to moderate and control themselves, they do not need a state, a religion, and/or any other bullshit hierachal nonsense to control them.

[Sinister Intents]

Well, I've seen some of you support Stalin, others denounce him.

Some of you support a marxist-state, others don't.

Some of you support revolution by violence, other's don't.

Some believe in having no authority figures, yet admit they're essential on some scenarios.

Some say stealing is wrong, yet condone the stealing of private property and capital from the capitalists.

Just some contradictions I've notices.

Those aren't really contradictions comrade. This forum is a spectrum of different people's views. Those that support Stalin use Stalin as more of a symbol, They may like Stalin but that doesn't make them a Stalinist. Marxist state? Marx warned about states, a worker's state just that a worker's state where the proletariat controls and owns the means of production (private property) collectively. Define authority figures. I think you're confusing personal and private property, sadly a common misconception. We socialists seek to collectively own private property (land, factories, natural resources, et cetera.) collectively. We don't want your personal stuff, just that billionaires land because you cannot own land. Property is THEFT!!

[tooAlive]

Somehow I doubt you read those... or a whole lot of other leftist literature. Perhaps you've read some things, but you don't come across as someone whose done a lot of reading of leftist literature. If you've read them read them again, reading something again is easy, is it not?

Believe it.

I've read every single comment in this thread. I've also read Marx, read through the Manifesto, ect.. I think a Reagan quote is appropriate here:

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."


This is a fucking internet forum called RevLeft, and is tiny in comparison to the much larger and more popular reactionary internet forums like (s)CumFront. It doesn't discredit leftist ideology at all, I fail to see how a tiny internet forum being moderated by elected individuals contradicts leftist politics. People will be able to moderate and control themselves, they do not need a state, a religion, and/or any other bullshit hierachal nonsense to control them.

Exactly. This is a tiny forum and requires moderation. By what logic does a much larger and diverse group not require moderation?

I just don't buy it.

You'd be right in that this argument doesn't discredit leftist ideology IF you acknowledged that socialism has a state to run things. You claim that it's state-capitalism, and not representative of your ideology.

So if socialism/communist or whatever is indeed stateless, then yes, this argument does discredit it.

Why do people moderate themselves today?

Laws. Because if you vandalize a bank, you go to jail. That's how it is. A state enforces those laws. If there wasn't a state to enforce those laws, as you imply, what would stop people from committing those crimes?

[tooAlive]

Those aren't really contradictions comrade. Marxist state? Marx warned about states, a worker's state just that a worker's state where the proletariat controls and owns the means of production (private property) collectively. Define authority figures. I think you're confusing personal and private property, sadly a common misconception. We socialists seek to collectively own private property (land, factories, natural resources, et cetera.) collectively. We don't want your personal stuff, just that billionaires land because you cannot own land. Property is THEFT!!

Not believing in force yet wanting to force everyone to serve the community is the ultimate contradiction in communism.

And I still see those points above as contradictions. There's many more on here if you look around.


This forum is a spectrum of different people's views. Those that support Stalin use Stalin as more of a symbol, They may like Stalin but that doesn't make them a Stalinist

...That's like saying you look up to Hitler, but aren't a Nazi. Come on man.

[Sinister Intents]

Believe it.

I've read every single comment in this thread. I've also read Marx, read through the Manifesto, ect.. I think a Reagan quote is appropriate here:

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

Sure. I'm sure you've read all the posts, that's not very hard and doesn't take too much time, I've read them all as well. Hahaha FUCKING SERIOUS?? Reagan :laugh::laugh::laugh: Reagan is a fucking moron, I don't need to say much more, that'll be for another discussion. Are you a fucking conservative? I've read Marx and understand Marx, I've read Lenin's State and Revolution, but I am not a Marxist. I think you're someone whose read leftist literature and simply just read it without taking the time to understand it.


Exactly. This is a tiny forum and requires moderation. By what logic does a much larger and diverse group not require moderation?

I just don't buy it.

It requires moderation because IT'S AN INTERNET FORUM NOT REAL LIFE.


You'd be right in that this argument doesn't discredit leftist ideology IF you acknowledged that socialism has a state to run things. You claim that it's state-capitalism, and not representative of your ideology.

So if socialism/communist or whatever is indeed stateless, then yes, this argument does discredit it.

You don't need a fucking state, you're discrediting nothing.


Why do people moderate themselves today?

Laws. Because if you vandalize a bank, you go to jail. That's how it is. A state enforces those laws. If there wasn't a state to enforce those laws, as you imply, what would stop people from committing those crimes?

*Yawns* States create and enforce laws to criminalize the people and legalize their actions. Laws aren't moderation. Yeah I would fucking vandalize a bank because banks for profit businesses, and after the revolution that building should be utilized by the people accordingly. I seriously think you're very confused on MANY things and deserve to do yourself a favor and reread everything you've supposedly read. Crime and punishment under socialism will be up to the people in their respective communities to decide.

[Sinister Intents]

Not believing in force yet wanting to force everyone to serve the community is the ultimate contradiction in communism.

And I still see those points above as contradictions. There's many more on here if you look around.



...That's like saying you look up to Hitler, but aren't a Nazi. Come on man.

Well the capitalists won't give up the property they own without force, nobody can own land, nobody should own land. I see no contradictions, only semantics and differences between Marxism and anarchism, which generally are up to semantics.

Also, not really. I don't look up to or like Stalin or any of the other MList dictators.

[liberlict]

I consider anarchism to be closer to pure capitalism than socialism.

It comes down to private property and how its' legitimacy under capitalism amounts to theft (apparently): Say an exchange takes place between two people, where one person swaps a car for a parcel of land. This transaction is not valid to communists because land belongs to the people.

I've never really understood why land is so sacred to communists while 'personal belongings', which could mean anything from a toothbrush to a yacht, are not. It has something to do 'natures gifts' being the preserve of all.

[Sinister Intents]

It comes down to private property and how its' legitimacy under capitalism amounts to theft (apparently): Say an exchange takes place between two people, where one person swaps a car for a parcel of land. This transaction is not valid to communists because land belongs to the people.

I've never really understood why land is so sacred to communists while 'personal belongings', which could mean anything from a toothbrush to a yacht, are not. It has something to do 'natures gifts' being the preserve of all.

Private property is land, buildings like factories that are the means of production, natural resources, et cetera. Personal property would include your boat, your dirty toothbrush, your car, your toilet, your house, your clothing. Private property =/= personal property. Private property is to be collectively owned by all and your personal property will remain that, your personal property.

[tooAlive]

Sure. I'm sure you've read all the posts, that's not very hard and doesn't take too much time, I've read them all as well. Hahaha FUCKING SERIOUS?? Reagan :laugh::laugh::laugh: Reagan is a fucking moron, I don't need to say much more, that'll be for another discussion. Are you a fucking conservative? I've read Marx and understand Marx, I've read Lenin's State and Revolution, but I am not a Marxist. I think you're someone whose read leftist literature and simply just read it without taking the time to understand it.

Why can't you just accept the fact that I've read Marx, other leftist propaganda, I understand it, and don't agree with any of it?



It requires moderation because IT'S AN INTERNET FORUM NOT REAL LIFE.

Oh no? So this forum exists in a parallel universe of some sort then? What planet do the members of this forum reside on?



You don't need a fucking state, you're discrediting nothing.

*Yawns* States create and enforce laws to criminalize the people and legalize their actions. Laws aren't moderation. Yeah I would fucking vandalize a bank because banks for profit businesses, and after the revolution that building should be utilized by the people accordingly.

Then why don't you go do it? Oh because you'll get arrested and go to jail right?

You discredit yourself. You do need a state to protect some people from other people that believe they have the right to other peoples property.


I seriously think you're very confused on MANY things and deserve to do yourself a favor and reread everything you've supposedly read. Crime and punishment under socialism will be up to the people in their respective communities to decide.

I don't think I could force myself to read any more communist propaganda, to be honest.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

we've already explained multiple times that we have moderators and administrators here because otherwise we'd be completely flooded by reactionary trolls and at best we'd spend our time refuting the basest and most tired anti-communist arguments and soundbites (case in point quoting ronnie raygun) In that respect it's already clear that RevLeft is not and cannot resemble a post-capitalist society. I believe someone also mentioned that whilst it exists, one cannot escape capitalism and its functions - this is as true in any anarchist bakery or squat or commune as it is on the internet. I suppose you might argue that all users be given the powers of admins (arguably the more sensible and possibly more "communist" answer) but again, it's entirely open to abuse by the overwhelming number of people who fervently and dearly wish that we and our ideas were wiped from the earth, never mind some poky corner of the internet.

When you gabble about "oh how will people be organised we need states" and the like, you are missing something very, very important that's probably common to almost everyone's vision of a post-capitalist society. People will organise themselves. To grossly simplify things to the level of parody, what will pass for "government" will be every single person. The idea is that humanity will collectively administer to its needs, collectively address its problems and so on.

You say that you have read and understood a lot of leftist literature. I won't contradict you when you say you've read it, but I seriously question your understanding when you have such trouble understanding that communist society will be radically different to what it is now. When you mention laws, I find it interesting that you first mention vandalism - an attack on property. But how different would that situation be in a society with such a different concept of property? Would a vandal have cause to deface the building when for all intents and purposes, it is theirs as well as everyone elses'? Would "vandalism" in fact be a "crime" in the first place? Indeed, would there be "vandals" to any significant degree at all, considering the reasons people tend to commit vandalism in the first place (i.e boredom, disaffectedness, the need to impose some kind of mark/power on an oppressive and seemingly uncaring world which doesn't care if you live or die - the list goes on.)

The way people behave is informed by the society they are raised and live in. In a society based on greed, ruthless competition and private ownership, yes, communist practises would have the lifespan of a snowman in a blast furnace. Likewise, in a society based on mutual respect, co-operation and communal ownership, I imagine some git aggressively trying to occupy an area as "theirs" would ultimately not have a very good time of it. There is no need to protect people from "believing they have a right to other peoples' property" because (to simplify things) they will have a right to it - or at least, as much as anyone else does.

[tooAlive]

we've already explained multiple times that we have moderators and administrators here because otherwise we'd be completely flooded by reactionary trolls and at best we'd spend our time refuting the basest and most tired anti-communist arguments and soundbites (case in point quoting ronnie raygun) In that respect it's already clear that RevLeft is not and cannot resemble a post-capitalist society. I believe someone also mentioned that whilst it exists, one cannot escape capitalism and its functions - this is as true in any anarchist bakery or squat or commune as it is on the internet. I suppose you might argue that all users be given the powers of admins (arguably the more sensible and possibly more "communist" answer) but again, it's entirely open to abuse by the overwhelming number of people who fervently and dearly wish that we and our ideas were wiped from the earth, never mind some poky corner of the internet.

Tell me, how many anti-communists out of the 7 billion people on earth do you think need to exist in order to pose a significant setback to your movement, and possibly require the need for an authority figure to protect the revolutionaries from their attacks or disruptions?

You imply that in a post-capitalist society, everyone will automatically become a communist.

You even admit that this forum NEEDS moderation because other people out there that think differently pose a threat to it's smooth function. HOW can you assume that those same people will not do the same thing in the real world???

You've repeated the same argument to counter my original point, but it doesn't address that specific issue. In the real world, the same as in this forum, how will you keep the anti-revolutionaries in check?


When you gabble about "oh how will people be organised we need states" and the like, you are missing something very, very important that's probably common to almost everyone's vision of a post-capitalist society. People will organise themselves. To grossly simplify things to the level of parody, what will pass for "government" will be every single person. The idea is that humanity will collectively administer to its needs, collectively address its problems and so on.

I don't think I'm missing anything. I know that's what you assume will take place. With my above statement, I'm pointing out why 7 billion people will not simply organize themselves.


You say that you have read and understood a lot of leftist literature. I won't contradict you when you say you've read it, but I seriously question your understanding when you have such trouble understanding that communist society will be radically different to what it is now.

My understanding of what you want isn't lacking. I know exactly what your ideology advocates. I'm simply refuting the idea that it's possible, as you envision it.


When you mention laws, I find it interesting that you first mention vandalism - an attack on property. But how different would that situation be in a society with such a different concept of property? Would a vandal have cause to deface the building when for all intents and purposes, it is theirs as well as everyone elses'? Would "vandalism" in fact be a "crime" in the first place? Indeed, would there be "vandals" to any significant degree at all, considering the reasons people tend to commit vandalism in the first place (i.e boredom, disaffectedness, the need to impose some kind of mark/power on an oppressive and seemingly uncaring world which doesn't care if you live or die - the list goes on.)

So, you admit that the only reason people don't vandalize property today is because of laws, right? And a state that enforces them, of course.

But you bring up the strawman that if there was no private property, there would be no need for vandalism.

What about other attacks on people or their personal belongings?

[tooAlive]

It comes down to private property and how its' legitimacy under capitalism amounts to theft (apparently): Say an exchange takes place between two people, where one person swaps a car for a parcel of land. This transaction is not valid to communists because land belongs to the people.

I've never really understood why land is so sacred to communists while 'personal belongings', which could mean anything from a toothbrush to a yacht, are not. It has something to do 'natures gifts' being the preserve of all.

That's exactly the same holes I find in their arguments as well.

Say you started collecting wood, and built yourself a yacht, like you said.

Does that yacht belong to you or to the community? If it belongs to you, what happens if other people want to ride it, but you won't let them for fear that they might break something on it? How will they "force" you to share it with them, without an authority figure to take the yacht you built away from you?

So now you have a yacht that you built with your own "means of production," but nobody else has access to. I can think of a million other scenarios like this one which would cause problems in a communist system.

[Sinister Intents]

Private property is land, buildings like factories that are the means of production, natural resources, et cetera. Personal property would include your boat, your dirty toothbrush, your car, your toilet, your house, your clothing. Private property =/= personal property. Private property is to be collectively owned by all and your personal property will remain that, your personal property.


That's exactly the same holes I find in their arguments as well.

Say you started collecting wood, and built yourself a yacht, like you said.

Does that yacht belong to you or to the community? If it belongs to you, what happens if other people want to ride it, but you won't let them for fear that they might break something on it? How will they "force" you to share it with them, without an authority figure to take the yacht you built away from you?

So now you have a yacht that you built with your own "means of production," but nobody else has access to. I can think of a million other scenarios like this one which would cause problems in a communist system.

Like I said above. If you built yourself a fucking yacht that would be your propery. That yacht belongs to you, you can share it with people of course, but if you built the yacht yourself with your own labor it be yours. If people want to ride my yacht I would decide if I knew the person well enough to let them join me on a cruise. If they break something you can replace that yourself, If someone tries to force you to share your yacht you can force them to stop. Be your own fucking authority. A yacht isn't a fucking means of production it would be your own personal property.
Your anticommunist scenarios are all probably bullshit and easily torn apart.

What are your views on feminism? Racism? Sexism? Immigration? if I may ask.

[tooAlive]

I think this thread has gone on long enough, and both sides have been able to give enough material to support their beliefs.

Beyond this point we'd simply be going around in circles, as it seems we've hit a fork in the road where we ultimately just disagree.

I won't convince you, nor will you convince me.

It was a pleasure debating with you all and I'd like to thank everyone for participating. I'm retiring myself from this thread now, but perhaps there will be some new ones in the future. We'll see.

Wishing everyone the best -- 'till next time.

[#FF0000]

I think the "xyz are socialists/socialist societies so i will criticize them" way of going about this discussion is a dead end. If you wanna criticize socialism, then you gotta criticize marxist critique of capitalism, imo. Otherwise we're just talking shit about whose utopia is better.

edit: as you two just demonstrated holy shit

[Venas Abiertas]

Well, tooAlive, I hope you read this post anyway.

Contrary to the last several posters, I do believe that the USSR, Maoist China, and Cuba contained many elements of a socialist economy, although of course they did not reach the point of total worker control of the means of production. The last example, Cuba, is a great inspiration for all of us in Latin America and although we recognize that errors were commited there we will always admire its many achievements.

I presume you read Spanish, since somebody mentioned that you are a Cuban-American:

http://www.diarioliberdade.org/archivos/imagenes/articulos/0610a/010610_realidade_cuba_socialista.jpg

For anybody else who wants to know, the sign says "200 million children sleep in the streets tonight. Not one of them is Cuban."

Any poor person in Latin America would give their right arm to live in Cuba. The rich, no. They can't make enough money there to waddle in excess as they are used to. The "middle classes" like to think they are rich or on their way there and ape the customs and attitudes of the rich, so they would not be happy in Cuba either. But any one of the desamparados I know, anyone of the campesinos I know, would love to live in Cuba.

The poor of the country where I live have never seen a doctor or dentist. They can't go to school because even "public" school is too expensive. They live in daily fear of crime from street gangs, drug mafias, police, military, the local bully, or whoever wants to abuse them. They have no rights at all. They would gladly trade places with any Cuban.

I am not ashamed to say that I love socialist Cuba and I would be proud to be a Cuban.

Cosas que no hay en Cuba: (Things they don't have in Cuba)

http://enmitrincheradelucha.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/cuba.jpg

-School shootings
-Corner drug dealers
-Crackhouses
-Kidnappings and murders
-Dismembered corpses
-Dead bodies in the streets
-Disappeared people "Bar Heaven Style"
-Bodies wrapped up in blankets
-Bodies hanging from bridges
-"Virtual" kidnappings
-"Express" kidnappings
-Extortion from gangs in jail
-News media that sells out to politicians
-Traitorous politicians
Politicians in cahoots with drug traffickers
-Migrants killed in a cowardly fashion
-Human trafficking
-Organ trafficking
-Sex trafficking

[Venas Abiertas]

You want to talk about Stalin? OK, let's talk about Stalin.

When Stalin took over the Soviet Union, it was in very bad shape. It had just recently emerged from feudalism (serfdom was abolished until 1860's) and had just been through 4 years of World War I (4 million young men dead) plus 4 years of fratricidal civil war (another 3 or 4 million dead.) It was broke. All contact with the Western world had been cut off. The country was a basket case, like Korea or Vietnam or Germany after the wars.

Thirty years later, when Stalin died, the Soviet Union was an industrialized world power. Life expectancy had been extended by twenty-five years. Infant mortality was down to Western standards. There was no unemployment. The country had just defeated the worst armed menace Europe had ever known. It was self-sufficient in agriculture. Its prowess threatened the Western nations and many believed capitalism would soon be a thing of the past.

I don't say these things to adulate Stalin. Stalin did not accomplish these things on his own. He was a hard man, sometimes a brutal man, a product of his times. But what the Soviet Union achieved during those years proves beyond all doubt that a socialist system, even a flawed one, is superior to capitalism. Socialism can work, and it can produce and achieve more in 25 years than capitalism did in 200 years.

You might say, "But many millions died during the Stalin 'regime'".

In the first place, the figures for deaths during Stalin's period of government have been greatly exaggerated by the capitalist media. No mention was made of these deaths back in the 1930's, 40's, and 50's, until Khruschev denounced Stalin.

In the second place, and more importantly, how many millions of victims has capitalism produced? How many tens of millions died in the two World Wars, both fought by capitalist "regimes" battling over natural resources? How many millions of Native Americans, Australian and New Zealand original peoples, Africans and Asians, all victims of the capitalist phenomenon of colonialism? How many millions of Africans died in the passage on slave ships to the Americas? How many have died and continue to die from hunger in a world where food is thrown in the garbage, from easily treatable diseases, in the countless other wars over minerals, petroleum, land, and other resources just in the last century?

Surely these victims would add up to the hundreds of millions, dwarfing the number of deaths caused by "communist" regimes.

I repeat, I am not an admirer of Stalin. I simply say these things to demonstrate the enormous irony of extolling the virtues of capitalism while condemning communism as bloodthirsty and tyrranical.

[A Psychological Symphony]

You want to talk about Stalin? OK, let's talk about Stalin.

When Stalin took over the Soviet Union, it was in very bad shape. It had just recently emerged from feudalism (serfdom was abolished until 1860's) and had just been through 4 years of World War I (4 million young men dead) plus 4 years of fratricidal civil war (another 3 or 4 million dead.) It was broke. All contact with the Western world had been cut off. The country was a basket case, like Korea or Vietnam or Germany after the wars.

Thirty years later, when Stalin died, the Soviet Union was an industrialized world power. Life expectancy had been extended by twenty-five years. Infant mortality was down to Western standards. There was no unemployment. The country had just defeated the worst armed menace Europe had ever known. It was self-sufficient in agriculture. Its prowess threatened the Western nations and many believed capitalism would soon be a thing of the past.

I don't say these things to adulate Stalin. Stalin did not accomplish these things on his own. He was a hard man, sometimes a brutal man, a product of his times. But what the Soviet Union achieved during those years proves beyond all doubt that a socialist system, even a flawed one, is superior to capitalism. Socialism can work, and it can produce and achieve more in 25 years than capitalism did in 200 years.

You might say, "But many millions died during the Stalin 'regime'".

In the first place, the figures for deaths during Stalin's period of government have been greatly exaggerated by the capitalist media. No mention was made of these deaths back in the 1930's, 40's, and 50's, until Khruschev denounced Stalin.

In the second place, and more importantly, how many millions of victims has capitalism produced? How many tens of millions died in the two World Wars, both fought by capitalist "regimes" battling over natural resources? How many millions of Native Americans, Australian and New Zealand original peoples, Africans and Asians, all victims of the capitalist phenomenon of colonialism? How many millions of Africans died in the passage on slave ships to the Americas? How many have died and continue to die from hunger in a world where food is thrown in the garbage, from easily treatable diseases, in the countless other wars over minerals, petroleum, land, and other resources just in the last century?

Surely these victims would add up to the hundreds of millions, dwarfing the number of deaths caused by "communist" regimes.

I repeat, I am not an admirer of Stalin. I simply say these things to demonstrate the enormous irony of extolling the virtues of capitalism while condemning communism as bloodthirsty and tyrranical.

I feel like you've somehow combined Lenin and Stalin in this post

[liberlict]

That's exactly the same holes I find in their arguments as well.

Say you started collecting wood, and built yourself a yacht, like you said.

Does that yacht belong to you or to the community? If it belongs to you, what happens if other people want to ride it, but you won't let them for fear that they might break something on it? How will they "force" you to share it with them, without an authority figure to take the yacht you built away from you?

So now you have a yacht that you built with your own "means of production," but nobody else has access to. I can think of a million other scenarios like this one which would cause problems in a communist system.

I'm compelled to agree comrade tooAlive. In addition, communists have no satisfactory explanation for what's stopping me profiting from my personal yacht? Let's say I only use it 3 day a week, and the other 4 I decide to rent it out as a service. As a free individual, you'd think I'd be able to do this with my own yacht. But since profiteering is immoral to the socialist, it cannot be so. Socialists need to either admit they don't want people to be free, or accept the right to profit.

[liberlict]

Private property is land, buildings like factories that are the means of production, natural resources, et cetera. Personal property would include your boat, your dirty toothbrush, your car, your toilet, your house, your clothing. Private property =/= personal property. Private property is to be collectively owned by all and your personal property will remain that, your personal property.

Oh that's lovely, I can have a house but no land. I suppose I'll hover it somewhere up in the air.

[Sinister Intents]

I'm compelled to agree comrade tooAlive. In addition, communists have no satisfactory explanation for what's stopping me profiting from my personal yacht? Let's say I only use it 3 day a week, and the other 4 I decide to rent it out as a service. As a free individual, you'd think I'd be able to do this with my own yacht. But since profiteering is immoral to the socialist, it cannot be so. Socialists need to either admit that don't want people to be free, or accept my right to profit.

Did you even read my earlier post?

[liberlict]

Did you even read my earlier post?

Probably not.

[Sinister Intents]

Probably not.

I think you should.

[Tim Cornelis]

Why can't you just accept the fact that I've read Marx, other leftist propaganda, I understand it, and don't agree with any of it?

Nothing you've written suggests you've either read or understood it.


I don't think I could force myself to read any more communist propaganda, to be honest.

Which is willful ignorance.


Tell me, how many anti-communists out of the 7 billion people on earth do you think need to exist in order to pose a significant setback to your movement, and possibly require the need for an authority figure to protect the revolutionaries from their attacks or disruptions?

You imply that in a post-capitalist society, everyone will automatically become a communist.

Virtually anyone will. Ideologies are a product of bourgeois society, as I'm sure you understand.


You even admit that this forum NEEDS moderation because other people out there that think differently pose a threat to it's smooth function. HOW can you assume that those same people will not do the same thing in the real world???

That's why we propose a workers' state.


I'm compelled to agree comrade tooAlive. In addition, communists have no satisfactory explanation for what's stopping me profiting from my personal yacht? Let's say I only use it 3 day a week, and the other 4 I decide to rent it out as a service. As a free individual, you'd think I'd be able to do this with my own yacht. But since profiteering is immoral to the socialist, it cannot be so. Socialists need to either admit they don't want people to be free, or accept the right to profit.

1) There is no money so you can't rent it out.
2) Productive resources are commonly owned so you'll be expropriated. It's not your own yacht then.


Oh that's lovely, I can have a house but no land. I suppose I'll hover it somewhere up in the air.

It's quite common that someone owns a house, but not the land it stands on in today's society.

[Tim Cornelis]

You want to talk about Stalin? OK, let's talk about Stalin.

When Stalin took over the Soviet Union, it was in very bad shape. It had just recently emerged from feudalism (serfdom was abolished until 1860's) and had just been through 4 years of World War I (4 million young men dead) plus 4 years of fratricidal civil war (another 3 or 4 million dead.) It was broke. All contact with the Western world had been cut off. The country was a basket case, like Korea or Vietnam or Germany after the wars.

Thirty years later, when Stalin died, the Soviet Union was an industrialized world power. Life expectancy had been extended by twenty-five years. Infant mortality was down to Western standards. There was no unemployment. The country had just defeated the worst armed menace Europe had ever known. It was self-sufficient in agriculture. Its prowess threatened the Western nations and many believed capitalism would soon be a thing of the past.

I don't say these things to adulate Stalin. Stalin did not accomplish these things on his own. He was a hard man, sometimes a brutal man, a product of his times. But what the Soviet Union achieved during those years proves beyond all doubt that a socialist system, even a flawed one, is superior to capitalism. Socialism can work, and it can produce and achieve more in 25 years than capitalism did in 200 years.

You might say, "But many millions died during the Stalin 'regime'".

In the first place, the figures for deaths during Stalin's period of government have been greatly exaggerated by the capitalist media. No mention was made of these deaths back in the 1930's, 40's, and 50's, until Khruschev denounced Stalin.

In the second place, and more importantly, how many millions of victims has capitalism produced? How many tens of millions died in the two World Wars, both fought by capitalist "regimes" battling over natural resources? How many millions of Native Americans, Australian and New Zealand original peoples, Africans and Asians, all victims of the capitalist phenomenon of colonialism? How many millions of Africans died in the passage on slave ships to the Americas? How many have died and continue to die from hunger in a world where food is thrown in the garbage, from easily treatable diseases, in the countless other wars over minerals, petroleum, land, and other resources just in the last century?

Surely these victims would add up to the hundreds of millions, dwarfing the number of deaths caused by "communist" regimes.

I repeat, I am not an admirer of Stalin. I simply say these things to demonstrate the enormous irony of extolling the virtues of capitalism while condemning communism as bloodthirsty and tyrranical.

Rise in life expectancy, lowering infant mortality, self-sufficient agriculture, industrialisation are not measures by which we can see whether a society is socialist, so by no means does the USSR prove socialism is superior. Moreover, the USSR proved that the mobilisation of resources in state-capitalism is superior to that of liberal capitalism. This was all a process of primitive accumulation of capital (resulting in millions of deaths) and accumulation of capital in general. When labour and natural resources had been mobilised to the maximum extent possible, and labour discipline enforced to extract as much surplus value as possible, the USSR found itself to be in some sort of bottleneck. Cultivation of natural resources wielded lower rates of return and productive technology was not sufficiently revolutionised to advanced economic growth (i.e. accumulation of capital) from the 1960s onward. What we see were the limits of central planning as manifested in the absolute over-accumulation of capital and reveals the inferiority of state-capitalism vis-a-vis liberal capitalism.

You say "It had just recently emerged from feudalism ... Thirty years later, when Stalin died, the Soviet Union was an industrialized world power." I say, compared to 1900, in 1953 Russia had millions more proletarians and substantially more commodity production -- the opposite of what one would expect from socialism.

[Captain Red]

Does that yacht belong to you or to the community? If it belongs to you, what happens if other people want to ride it, but you won't let them for fear that they might break something on it? How will they "force" you to share it with them, without an authority figure to take the yacht you built away from you?

So now you have a yacht that you built with your own "means of production," but nobody else has access to. I can think of a million other scenarios like this one which would cause problems in a communist system.
If you where to live in an utopian communist society and you build a yacht with material and tools that belong to the community the yacht itself will also belong to the community so if someone wants to use the yacht he can because he also owns it and if he does he wouldn't have a reason to damage it or destroy it because he partly own it.

If however he likes the yacht a lot he might wanna improve it and so he builds a new engine on it so it goes faster and than the hole community including you will have a faster boat. If however he paints the yacht with a color that you don't like it doesn't matter that much because there will probably already be a yacht with the color you like in your community and as long as the demand for yachts keep growing people will continue building them and improving on them.

It might seem stupid but I think that if you get use to owning things together you wouldn't really have a problem with it, it would be like a family owning a TV together (and if you don't wanna watch the channel that is on you go too another room with another TV and watch it there)

[Ocean Seal]

Statistically no. There are too many left coms and too few ML and if you don't consider them communists then there are too few anarchists.

[liberlict]

1) There is no money so you can't rent it out.

What if I just rent it out for gold, iPads, or some non legal tender?


2) You'll be expropriated.

You're not doing a very good job of selling communism. :unsure:

[Quail]

Why would someone want to rent your yacht when they could use a collectively owned yacht for free? What would be the point of trying to accumulate resources in a communist society anyway? You already have everything that you need to live so I don't understand why you would go to the effort of trying to rent out a yacht.

Another point I want to make is that obviously the kinds of people who would come and wreck the forum are not communists, and a large number of people in the world are also not communists. In order for it to function, the people in a communist society must want to cooperate and work together. The way that people are won around to these kind of ideas generally isn't be debating on an internet forum, but by engaging in real world struggles in the workplace, the community, etc. When increasingly poor living conditions force people to fight back, they will become more open to the ideas of solidarity and mutual aid, because there is no other way of fighting back.

[liberlict]

Why would someone want to rent your yacht when they could use a collectively owned yacht for free?

Sadly at the moment there is a 6 week waiting list for the communal yachts.




What would be the point of trying to accumulate resources in a communist society anyway?

I really want to buy a hummer, and I know a guy who will trade me one for 6000 iPads. The town meeting didn't approve my request for the iPads, that's why I'm renting my yacht out.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sadly at the moment there is a 6 week waiting list for the communal yachts.

Waiting six weeks to go on a yacht trip is better than waiting forever, as is the case for the vast majority of people under capitalism.


I really want to buy a hummer, and I know a guy who will trade me one for 6000 iPads. The town meeting didn't approve my request for the iPads, that's why I'm renting my yacht out.

Why can't you wait? It's a hummer, not food or life-saving surgery.

[liberlict]

Waiting six weeks to go on a yacht trip is better than waiting forever, as is the case for the vast majority of people under capitalism.

No we're talking about about a specific, hypothetical, scenario that would arise in a communised world. In reality the 'waiting list' for luxury services would be much longer, to the point of paralysis, but I'm being generous here in allowing that there are communal yachts accessible within 6 weeks (preposterous).




Why can't you wait? It's a hummer, not food or life-saving surgery.

Because I don't want to? I already have lots of food. Why bother waiting when I can use a market to get what I want?

Now I'm understanding why Mises framed his economics around rational actions, because it's exactly what communists ignore.

[A Psychological Symphony]

no we're talking about about a specific, hypothetical, scenario that would arise in a communised world. in reality the 'waiting list' for luxury services would be much longer, to the point of paralysis, but i'm being generous here in allowing that there are communal yachts accessible within 6 weeks (preposterous).

oh, that's pretty cool that you've been to a real communist society. Can you tell me more about it? Do cars still weigh a ton? Are we still warmed by the sun? Has godzilla arisen to end our blasphemous commie fun?


because i don't want to? I already have lots of food. Why bother waiting when i can use a market to get what i want?

i'm going to ignore the fact that you chose a hummer as the item that you are willing to go through this trouble for...

now i'm understanding why mises framed his economics around rational actions, because it's exactly what communists ignore.


what is rational about your argument? Why would people go through a trouble of giving away personal property to get something they already have? If i have a spring break trip all expenses paid, why would i drop that and go in February for a price? The one word i can think of to describe that is irrational.


I'm Red ;)

[liberlict]

I'm Red ;)

You can't quote your post when you format it that way. Try using the normal way.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No we're talking about about a specific, hypothetical, scenario that would arise in a communised world. In reality the 'waiting list' for luxury services would be much longer, to the point of paralysis, but I'm being generous here in allowing that there are communal yachts accessible within 6 weeks (preposterous).

If it's so preposterous, then why not make a different argument, one made in good faith?

If you think that the provision of luxuries would be delayed to the point of paralysis, then perhaps you could start by outlining why you think that would be?

Or perhaps you're just moving the goalposts.


Because I don't want to? I already have lots of food. Why bother waiting when I can use a market to get what I want?

Because there is no market, given that you granted the existence of a communist mode of production in your hypothetical. Without a trustworthy medium of exchange, your yacht trip is useless to the guy who wants 6000 iPads in exchange for a hummer, because there would be no equivalence between any of those items in a communist economy.

But OK, let's imagine you've found someone who says they're willing to exchange 6000 iPads for a yacht trip. Without a regulated market in which to operate, what guarantees will you have that they aren't out to swindle you (the guy takes off with your yacht and the crates of iPads turn out to be full of rocks) or perhaps worse for you, is part of some kind of sting operation ("Xinjiang Electronics Collective publicly outs an old-school counter-revolutionary" runs the news headline)?

Why run the risk of being taken for a mug or getting into trouble, when the economically rational decision in this case consists merely of waiting?


Now I'm understanding why Mises framed his economics around rational actions, because it's exactly what communists ignore.

Mises was an idiot. People are not rational economic actors, and given the asymmetry of information inherent to capitalist markets, they can't be no matter how hard one might believe it so. Certainly tobacco companies and con-men don't get rich because of economically rational behaviour on the part of their customers. Of course, a lot depends on what exactly one means by "rational". Being rational in terms of capitalist economics is not synonymous with being rational in personal/social terms.

[liberlict]

If you think that the provision of luxuries would be delayed to the point of paralysis, then perhaps you could start by outlining why you think that would be?

I think that because I think there would be less yachts available than people who want to access them.



Because there is no market, given that you granted the existence of a communist mode of production in your hypothetical. Without a trustworthy medium of exchange, your yacht trip is useless to the guy who wants 6000 iPads in exchange for a hummer, because there would be no equivalence between any of those items in a communist economy.

Markets still exist in a communist MOP. They are just not legally protected. As you can see, I've just created a market by renting my yacht.


But OK, let's imagine you've found someone who says they're willing to exchange 6000 iPads for a yacht trip. Without a regulated market in which to operate, what guarantees will you have that they aren't out to swindle you (the guy takes off with your yacht and the crates of iPads turn out to be full of rocks) or perhaps worse for you, is part of some kind of sting operation ("Xinjiang Electronics Collective publicly outs an old-school counter-revolutionary" runs the news headline)?

Then I haven't lost anything, because I wasn't using the boat anyway.


Why run the risk of being taken for a mug or getting into trouble, when the economically rational decision in this case consists merely of waiting?

Why is waiting rational? He can get what he wants now.



Mises was an idiot. People are not rational economic actors, and given the asymmetry of information inherent to capitalist markets, they can't be no matter how hard one might believe it so. Certainly tobacco companies and con-men don't get rich because of economically rational behaviour on the part of their customers. Of course, a lot depends on what exactly one means by "rational". Being rational in terms of capitalist economics is not synonymous with being rational in personal/social terms.

It's quite obvious that you have no understanding of Mises' economics.

[reb]

Can't we just throw liberlict into the gulag?

[liberlict]

Can't we just throw liberlict into the gulag?

Markets operated in Soviet gulags. Camp administrators were accountable to higher-ups to meet their quotas .. so naturally administrators incentivised their slaves to work harder with vodka and cigarettes and whatever else (women...). I can't estimate how good of a worker I would have been, but I like to think I'm pretty robust, so I think I would have been one of the higher earning slaves. I do like to drink and smoke, so I don't know how much of those spoils I would be willing to part with. But nevertheless, say for the sake of argument that I am a hard working teetotaler with a ravenous sexual appetite; I could trade my vodka for sexual access to women, or whatever 'luxury' goods were going round ( a sharper shovel?).

I'd say my major goal though would be accumulate enough capital to bribe a Bolshevik to smuggle me to West Germany.

Effective property rights do not necessarily require explicit legal definition and enforcement. If camp administrators were rewarded by higher authority for efficiently managing the slaves under their control, this would be tantamount to a limited form of property right in slaves, and would have the tendency to
mitigate the exceptional brutality of the Gulag. Even in the absence of an explicit capital market for slaves, slaves would have a shadow price (and consequently an implicit capital value), reflecting their value as inputs in production to fulfill planned output, for which camp administrators are directly rewarded. This shadow price would perform the same functions as an explicit market price, albeit less efficiently.

LIFE IN THE GULAG: A PROPERTY
RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1985/5/cj5n1-15.pdf)

[Queen Mab]

Can't we just throw liberlict into the gulag?

Leave liberlict alone! I like him.

After the revolution I shall endeavour to spare him from the Jacobinical terror mobs roaming the streets.

Edit: er, scratch that, he lives across the Atlantic. I'll shoot an email to comrades in Fresno and put in a good word.

[Sinister Intents]

Can't we just throw liberlict into the gulag?

I don't think he quite deserves that haha.

[Lowtech]

I ask this because I noticed something interesting as I've been discussing things with you all here.

As I have come to understand, your ideal and ultimate goal of communism is a state-less, class-less and money-less egalitarian society where everyone is equal and treated equally. No masters, no slaves -- simply equality for all.

Am I right so far?

In layman speak, sure.


But then I noticed that not everyone on this forum is equal. Some of you are moderators, well respected, with the ability to move, edit and delete threads (and even users) as you see fit, then there are the regular users that can post freely, albeit with no special abilities, and then you have the not-so-liked users (like myself) that are restricted -- only allowed to post in one sub-forum.

TooAlive, why aren't you the sneaky fellow.

Firstly you are correct, some here have roles that they've earned based on merit, where you're incorrect however is the ASSumption that that is what occurs in capitalism. Money does not equal merit, efficiency, nor does it equal what one has "earned." If you're an employee you're paid less than the value of your labor so that it is profitable to the owner. If you're rich, you have "wealth" due to owning assets and as we know, assets do not produce value. Might does not make right. Sorry, try again.


My Question -

Why not make this forum more like communism? Why not grant each user the same equal titles and abilities, including the now restricted users?

because that makes no sense and is not the definition of equality. Under capitalism, there is economic inequality that produces poverty, war, etc. We seek to remove the artificial scarcity capitalists introduce and perpetuate.


I would assume if it can work in such a small test-group such as RevLeft, it could be a sign that it's also possible on a grander scale.

possible? capitalism has only existed in the last couple thousands of years, if you believe nothing else were possible, you must assume we just popped into existence with the advent of agriculture?


Just a thought.

not a very informed thought.


Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure communism has a lot to do with abolishing social classes.

And on this forum you have 3 classes:


Moderators/Admins
Regular Users
Restricted Users


You're confusing a practical hierarchy with "classes." Not surprising, as capitalists ASSert that economic subjugation and plutocratic rule is a practical hierarchy, as you would undoubtedly believe that we "dull-minded" workers must allow ourselves to be subjugated in exchange for plutocratic benevolence.

Economic subjugation has no practicality.


And I'm pretty sure I've read a few times on here how you strive for equality as absolute as possible.

I think it would serve as a great experiment to try and put communism into action right here. Grant everyone on here the same abilities and privileges. Aren't you regular users even just a little bit tempted to have the same benefits as your fellow mods and admins?

If not, why not?

I propose a better experiment: introduce "jobs," "currency" and "assets" on this board and watch as it all degrades into a festival of ignorance where only those with the wealth make all the decisions for their own gain.

[Lowtech]

Markets operated in Soviet gulags. Camp administrators were accountable to higher-ups to meet their quotas

I know your entire argument will always start and end with confusing lenin's obvious capitalist-esque philosophies with communism. But I will play your silly little game.

production for profit doesn't end with production methods but extends to the design of tools, materials, etc. Using the same profit-based technologies/"products" will bring the same artificial scarcity that produced them. In simpler terms, to use profit based technologies, one must emulate profit based production, and with it all of it's terrible inefficiencies, and that is exactly what you describe.

[Zukunftsmusik]

It obviously wouldn't work, cause you can't have socialism in one forum