Question to socialists

[Libertie76]

Well, like with the definitions of socialism an capitalism you're using, if you use different definitions, then what, exactly, is your argument against socialism?

You claim we're not against capitalism, we're against 'corporatism', and we're not socialists, because we want to destroy the state (and you think socialism means 'big state'), so, what exactly is your problem?

If you're discussing with us, you're going to have to get use to the fact that class is defined by relationship to the means of production. Whether you went to university or have a big house doesn't come into it. Capitalism can have all sorts of status gradations in it, but these don't constitute different classes, as class is defined by relationship of the means of production.

I never said you weren't against capitalism, it's just the arguments I get about capitalism are more directed to corporatism

I never said you weren't socialists because you want to destroy the state, and I showed how a government can still exist and by definition it's a state in a. Marxist society, actually it showed how it needs to exist.

You are saying I'm re defining words but you literally just redefined social class

If class is relationship to means of production I'd like that definition.

Even if that's the case of the definition then the doctors I was talking about in my earlier post have a different relationship to means of production then the factory workers, unless of course u suggest everybody be doctors or everybody be factory workers

[Libertie76]

What paradigm you blithering idiot?

Um the one on the previous page you "blithering idiot"

[Lord Testicles]

If class is relationship to means of production I'd like that definition.


In Marxism, Marxian class theory asserts that an individual’s position within a class hierarchy is determined by his or her role in the production process. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_class_theory)

[Libertie76]

In Marxism, Marxian class theory asserts that an individual’s position within a class hierarchy is determined by his or her role in the production process. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_class_theory)

So the role of the farmer is different then the role of the chef...

So to get rid of class hierarchy according to Marx we would need to get rid of either farmers or chefs

[Lord Testicles]

So the role of the farmer is different then the role of the chef...

So to get rid of class hierarchy according to Marx we would need to get rid of either farmers or chefs

Blithering. Idiot.

Where did you get that idea from numbskull?

[Blake's Baby]

Honestly, like 10 pages ago people were suggesting you read stuff like the Manifesto and the principles of Communism. You're arguing about really basic stuff.

Do doctors really have a different relationship to the means of production to factory workers? What are the means of production of 'health' as a good? Are they not the raw materials (eg drugs) and machines that doctors work on while treating their patients?

[Libertie76]

Blithering. Idiot.

Where did you get that idea from numbskull?

Because you blithering idiot you said it is relation to the production process you numbskull the chef and the farmer are two different processes in production

[Lord Testicles]

Because you blithering idiot you said it is relation to the production process you numbskull the chef and the farmer are two different processes in production

Yeah, but if you took two fucking seconds to think about it (or maybe read if you're really incapable of that) you would realise that they have the same relationship to the means of production.

[Libertie76]

Honestly, like 10 pages ago people were suggesting you read stuff like the Manifesto and the principles of Communism. You're arguing about really basic stuff.

Do doctors really have a different relationship to the means of production to factory workers? What are the means of production of 'health' as a good? Are they not the raw materials (eg drugs) and machines that doctors work on while treating their patients?

Well if it's basic then explain it to me!

And yes I would like a doctors opinion on what raw materials to take to benefit my health then a factory worker, I know I know Im Just an evil capitalist but still that's just my opinion

If it comes to the manufacturing process, the people making it will be listening to the ding ding ding DOCTORS!

[Libertie76]

Yeah, but if you took two fucking seconds to think about it (or maybe read if you're really incapable of that) you would realise that they have the same relationship to the means of production.

Really so chefs actually plant and fertilize and grow the crops and farmers prepared it for consumption by means of cooking?

[Blake's Baby]

That doesn't mean they're different social classes.

If the chef is employed (to process food) and the farmer is employed (to process agricultural inputs) they have the same relationship to the means of production - they're workers.

If the chef owns his own business and works in the kitchen along with a workforce, and the farmer works on his farm he owns, also with a workforce, they have the same relationship to the means of production - they both employ labour and mix their own with it, so they're petit-bourgeois.

EDIT - oh I see, you think that 'every single thing that can produce anything' is a separate 'means of production' that every single individual relates to on an individual basis.

No, not that. Like I said, this is simple stuff.

Classes = relationship to the means of production. Not 'this' means of prduction' and 'that' means of production and 'the other' means of production. The totality of means of production.

Some people own the means of production. These people are capitalists, AKA the bourgeoisie.

Some people have nothing but their labour-power. This they sell to the capitalists; these people are the working class or proletariat.

Some people occupy a somewhat intermediate position. These people are, in the grand historical scheme, irrelevant, though their skills are certainly useful.

Society contains two tendencies. As production is social, the working class represents the tendency to collectivisation. As appropriation is individual, the bourgeoisie represents the tendency to individualisation.

So capitalism and socialism are locked in life-and-death struggle. Capitalism replicates itself through the exploitation of the proletariat, but the proletariat always is compelled to fight against its own exploitation.

Revolution is the rupture in the system when the proletariat overthrows the conditions of its exploitation and ends class society. Everyone has the same relationship to the means of production because everyone is concerned in both working and taking the fruits of production.

[Lord Testicles]

Really so chefs actually plant and fertilize and grow the crops and farmers prepared it for consumption by means of cooking?

You either have a serious comprehension problem or you are one of the most wilfully stupid individuals in existence. Did I actually suggest anything of the sort?

[Libertie76]

That doesn't mean they're different social classes.

If the chef is employed (to process food) and the farmer is employed (to process agricultural inputs) they have the same relationship to the means of production - they're workers.

If the chef owns his own business and works in the kitchen along with a workforce, and the farmer works on his farm he owns, also with a workforce, they have the same relationship to the means of production - they both employ labour and mix their own with it, so they're petit-bourgeois.

So a chef can own a business? I thought that there was no property

However he said role in the production process, we're talking about producing food. Small farmer grows wheat gives to a baker who bakes it. The agricultural growth of wheat, preparation for baking the baker bakes it prepares it for consumption two different roles in he production process. Just because they work does not mean they have the same role in the production process.

Ok here's a stumper. How do we regulate automobiles in this utopia with no form of law. Let's say I'm driving to my nice baker while your driving to your blithering numbskull idiot farmer and we get into an accident. I say your at fault, u say I'm at fault. How do we decide who is at fault without law.

[Libertie76]

You either have a serious comprehension problem or you are one of the most wilfully stupid individuals in existence. Did I actually suggest anything of the sort?

You said they were the same thing in the production process

[Lord Testicles]

You said they were the same thing in the production process

Show me the quote. You'll find that I said that they had the same relationship to the means of production. Are you purposefully this stupid?

[Libertie76]

That doesn't mean they're different social classes.

If the chef is employed (to process food) and the farmer is employed (to process agricultural inputs) they have the same relationship to the means of production - they're workers.

If the chef owns his own business and works in the kitchen along with a workforce, and the farmer works on his farm he owns, also with a workforce, they have the same relationship to the means of production - they both employ labour and mix their own with it, so they're petit-bourgeois.

EDIT - oh I see, you think that 'every single thing that can produce anything' is a separate 'means of production' that every single individual relates to on an individual basis.

No, not that. Like I said, this is simple stuff.

Classes = relationship to the means of production. Not 'this' means of prduction' and 'that' means of production and 'the other' means of production. The totality of means of production.

Some people own the means of production. These people are capitalists, AKA the bourgeoisie.

Some people have nothing but their labour-power. This they sell to the capitalists; these people are the working class or proletariat.

Some people occupy a somewhat intermediate position. These people are, in the grand historical scheme, irrelevant, though their skills are certainly useful.

Society contains two tendencies. As production is social, the working class represents the tendency to collectivisation. As appropriation is individual, the bourgeoisie represents the tendency to individualisation.

So capitalism and socialism are locked in life-and-death struggle. Capitalism replicates itself through the exploitation of the proletariat, but the proletariat always is compelled to fight against its own exploitation.

Revolution is the rupture in the system when the proletariat overthrows the conditions of its exploitation and ends class society. Everyone has the same relationship to the means of production because everyone is concerned in both working and taking the fruits of production.

So socialism needs capitalism to survive... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_class_theory according to this he's referring to the transitional period not the utopian state when he talks about the classes

[Fakeblock]

When people speak of 'socialism', 'capitalism', 'states', 'nations' and so on they're speaking of theoretical concepts. This, by nature, makes dictionary definitions unsatisfactory. But, more importantly, every theoretical concept is only symptomatic of the theoretical framework that lies beneath it, of the system of interrelated concepts that shapes the manner in which individuals pose and answer questions. We Marxists must admit that the ways in which we use the above terms ('socialism', etc.) do not necessarily correspond to the Oxford Dictionary definitions. The complexity and advanced character of our concepts do not lend themselves to easy definitions and this is, of course, a drawback. However, it has the benefit of being scientific. On the other hand, the bourgeois ideological problematic may be nice and simple - it may even think it suffices to determine the nature of its concepts by the dictionary definition of their words - but it is precisely ideological and serves to hinder the production of real knowledge of the social structure.

Arguments over words are rarely what they seem to be. They are, on the contrary, arguments about the concepts underlying the words. We must, therefore, necessarily prove the scientific validity of our concepts, justify their explanatory powers. Marxists have an endless library of literature doing just this. I suggest that you familiarise yourself (at least in part) with this library, as it will answer most, if not all of the questions and arguments you have posed in this thread.

[Libertie76]

Show me the quote. You'll find that I said that they had the same relationship to the means of production. Are you purposefully this stupid?

So then there are separate classes in communism

[Blake's Baby]

So a chef can own a business? I thought that there was no property...

Sigh. I'm talking about capitalism, where there is property. Without property, how could there be different relations to the means of production?


...However he said role in the production process, we're talking about producing food. Small farmer grows wheat gives to a baker who bakes it. The agricultural growth of wheat, preparation for baking the baker bakes it prepares it for consumption two different roles in he production process. Just because they work does not mean they have the same role in the production process...

It's not about production processes, it's about relationship to the means of production. Do you own it, or do you work for someone who owns it?


...Ok here's a stumper. How do we regulate automobiles in this utopia with no form of law. Let's say I'm driving to my nice baker while your driving to your blithering numbskull idiot farmer and we get into an accident. I say your at fault, u say I'm at fault. How do we decide who is at fault without law.

What's law got to do with anything? What's law even got to do with finding out who might have been at fault?

[Libertie76]

When people speak of 'socialism', 'capitalism', 'states', 'nations' and so on they're speaking of theoretical concepts. This, by nature, makes dictionary definitions unsatisfactory. But, more importantly, every theoretical concept is only symptomatic of the theoretical framework that lies beneath it, of the system of interrelated concepts that shapes the manner in which individuals pose and answer questions. We Marxists must admit that the ways in which we use the above terms ('socialism', etc.) do not necessarily correspond to the Oxford Dictionary definitions. The complexity and advanced character of our concepts do not lend themselves to easy definitions and this is, of course, a drawback. However, it has the benefit of being scientific. On the other hand, the bourgeois ideological problematic may be nice and simple - it may even think it suffices to determine the nature of its concepts by the dictionary definition of their words - but it is precisely ideological and serves to hinder the production of real knowledge of the social structure.

Arguments over words are rarely what they seem to be. They are, on the contrary, arguments about the concepts underlying the words. We must, therefore, necessarily prove the scientific validity of our concepts, justify their explanatory powers. Marxists have an endless library of literature doing just this. I suggest that you familiarise yourself (at least in part) with this library, as it will answer most, if not all of the questions and arguments you have posed in this thread.

But then why hasn't anyone answered my last question?

[Lord Testicles]

So socialism needs capitalism to survive... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_class_theory according to this he's referring to the transitional period not the utopian state when he talks about the classes

That page says no such thing. Seriously, you should get your comprehension problem seen to, it's really bad.


So then there are separate classes in communism

No, nobody has even suggested such a thing.

[Libertie76]

Sigh. I'm talking about capitalism, where there is property. Without property, how could there be different relations to the means of production?



It's not about production processes, it's about relationship to the means of production. Do you own it, or do you work for someone who owns it?



What's law got to do with anything? What's law even got to do with finding out who might have been at fault?

If we disagree... How do we decide

[Libertie76]

That page says no such thing. Seriously, you should get your comprehension problem seen to, it's really bad.



No, nobody has even suggested such a thing.

Marx distinguishes one class from another on the basis of two criteria: ownership of the means of production and control of the labor power of others. From this, he defines modern society as having three distinct classes:

i. Capitalists, or bourgeoisie, own the means of production and purchase the labor power of others

ii. Workers, or proletariat, do not own any means of production or the ability to purchase the labor power of others. Rather, they sell their own labor power.

iii. A small, transitional class known as the petite bourgeoisie own sufficient means of production but do not purchase labor power. Marx's Communist Manifesto fails to properly define the petite bourgeoisie beyond “smaller capitalists” (Marx and Engels, 1848, 25).

Class is thus determined by property relations not by income or status. These factors are determined by distribution and consumption, which mirror the production and power relations of classes.

This is the link on classes u sent me

[Libertie76]

Sigh. I'm talking about capitalism, where there is property. Without property, how could there be different relations to the means of production?



It's not about production processes, it's about relationship to the means of production. Do you own it, or do you work for someone who owns it?



What's law got to do with anything? What's law even got to do with finding out who might have been at fault?

In Marxism, Marxian class theory asserts that an individual’s position within a class hierarchy is determined by his or her role in the production process. This is skins quote on class defined by Marx

[Blake's Baby]

You want me to tell how socialist traffic investigations will take place?

I'm not a fortune teller, I don't do palm-readings.

My favoured way of deciding who's at fault is 'tell the truth'. After that, if one of you isn't, then I think it's logical for the community where the crash happened to appoint someone/some people to investigate it.

[Lord Testicles]

Marx distinguishes one class from another on the basis of two criteria: ownership of the means of production and control of the labor power of others. From this, he defines modern society as having three distinct classes:

i. Capitalists, or bourgeoisie, own the means of production and purchase the labor power of others

ii. Workers, or proletariat, do not own any means of production or the ability to purchase the labor power of others. Rather, they sell their own labor power.

iii. A small, transitional class known as the petite bourgeoisie own sufficient means of production but do not purchase labor power. Marx's Communist Manifesto fails to properly define the petite bourgeoisie beyond “smaller capitalists” (Marx and Engels, 1848, 25).

Class is thus determined by property relations not by income or status. These factors are determined by distribution and consumption, which mirror the production and power relations of classes.

This is the link on classes u sent me

Now, explain to me how you got from the above to this:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_class_theory according to this he's referring to the transitional period not the utopian state when he talks about the classes

[Libertie76]

Now, explain to me how you got from the above to this:

"Modern society" in Marx's views was capitalism. That's what he considered the classes of society in the transitionary phase to communism. And besides the point they refer to the petit bourgeoisie as a "transitional class"

Almost forgot the blithering idiot numbskull dim wight sorry

[Blake's Baby]

That definition of the petite-bourgeoisie is wrong anyway, and contradicted if you then go to the wiki age on the peitie-bourgeoisie.

On the first page it says they have 'sufficient capital but don't employ workers, but work for bourgeois masters'; on the other page it says they do employ other workers, but work alongside them.

The first definition is closer to artisans than the petite-bourgeoisie.

EDIT: oh my monkeys. Structurally 'transitional', between workers and bosses. Not temporally transitional, between capitalist and communist.

[Lord Testicles]

"Modern society" in Marx's views was capitalism. That's what he considered the classes of society in the transitionary phase to communism. And besides the point they refer to the petit bourgeoisie as a "transitional class"

http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/1360831927375.jpg


Almost forgot the blithering idiot numbskull dim wight sorry

Yes, we know you are, there's no need to apologise... well maybe there is (depends on how much oxygen you're planning on stealing I guess.)

I think it's pretty clear that by "transitional class" it means transitional between proletariat and bourgeoisie not transitional between capitalism and communism, how would the way you've (mis)read it even make sense?

[Libertie76]

http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/1360831927375.jpg

Hahaha way to prove me wrong there buddy. Good job on answering my question u blithering idiot

[Blake's Baby]

Well, as you don't seem to be able to grasp very simple ideas - though to be honest trying to gain an understanding of Marxism from wiki is not a brilliant idea - I'll say again: the petite-bourgeoisie is not a class that is transitional between capitalist and communist society; it is a class that is transitional between the capitalist (=exploiting) class and the working (=exploited) class; it both works, and employs (=exploits) others. That's why it's 'transitional', it's a bit worky and a bit exploity; and (as I said about 20 posts ago) it's also pretty irrelevant.

[Libertie76]

That definition of the petite-bourgeoisie is wrong anyway, and contradicted if you then go to the wiki age on the peitie-bourgeoisie.

On the first page it says they have 'sufficient capital but don't employ workers, but work for bourgeois masters'; on the other page it says they do employ other workers, but work alongside them.

The first definition is closer to artisans than the petite-bourgeoisie.

EDIT: oh my monkeys. Structurally 'transitional', between workers and bosses. Not temporally transitional, between capitalist and communist.

Ok ok structural that makes sense, so nevermind on the quote, however, he's still talking about these classes existing in the transitional stage of communism.

I'm sorry no one has answered my question I'm happy you showed me more of an understanding of it. I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a utopia there will always be differences and there will always be something dividing us Marx might of only thought of structural economic class in capitalism as the only thing.

But I strongly differ classes are a social forms of power. Even if there is no economic difference dividing us there will be a social difference dividing us. It's unavoidable. This is why I do not think Marxism will ever ever work.

[Libertie76]

Well, as you don't seem to be able to grasp very simple ideas - though to be honest trying to gain an understanding of Marxism from wiki is not a brilliant idea - I'll say again: the petite-bourgeoisie is not a class that is transitional between capitalist and communist society; it is a class that is transitional between the capitalist (=exploiting) class and the working (=exploited) class; it both works, and employs (=exploits) others. That's why it's 'transitional', it's a bit worky and a bit exploity; and (as I said about 20 posts ago) it's also pretty irrelevant.

Well then tell ur buddy skinZ not to post definitions based on wiki

[Lord Testicles]

I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a utopia

You would think someone with such an interest in the dictionary would have come to that conclusion sooner. :rolleyes:

utopia
noun
An imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect. The opposite of dystopia.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/utopia

(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/utopia)
Well then tell ur buddy skinZ not to post definitions based on wiki
(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/utopia)
All I'm trying to do is find something simple enough for you.

(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/utopia)

[Blake's Baby]

1 - there is no 'transitional stage of communism'. I don't know what you mean there, nor what you are taking from Marx to reach that conclusion. A quote would help.

2 - no-one knows what is the question you are asking, so you need to restate it.

3 - you can think what you like, but the reality is that having short hair or long hair makes no difference to whether one eats or not. Ownership or not of the means of production does. Sociological notions of class are irrelevant.

[Libertie76]

http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/1360831927375.jpg



Yes, we know you are, there's no need to apologise... well maybe there is (depends on how much oxygen you're planning on stealing I guess.)

I think it's pretty clear that by "transitional class" it means transitional between proletariat and bourgeoisie not transitional between capitalism and communism, how would the way you've (mis)read it even make sense?

The funniest thing about u is you call me names constantly and the. Like completely do absolutely nothing to show me why my understandings are wrong. It really shows that you're a true numbskull blithering idiot that sends me quotes and then calls me an idiot for going on what your quote said as a definition

[Lord Testicles]

The funniest thing about u is you call me names constantly and the. Like completely do absolutely nothing to show me why my understandings are wrong. It really shows that you're a true numbskull blithering idiot that sends me quotes and then calls me an idiot for going on what your quote said as a definition

No, you're an idiot because you don't even try to understand anything. You've already made up your mind and you're hell-bent on twisting reality and arguments to conform to what you already believe to be true and you'll be damned if you're going to let anything like facts and rational argument get in your way.

[Libertie76]

1 - there is no 'transitional stage of communism'. I don't know what you mean there, not what you are taking from Marx to reach that conclusion. A quote would help.

2 - no-one knows what is the question you are asking, so you need to restate it.

3 - you can think what you like, but the reality is that having short hair or long hair makes no difference to whether one eats or not. Ownership or not of the means of production does. Sociological notions of class are irrelevant.

I am not restating my question I asked twice already and got no answer. I actually told you three times and you directly replied to all three. Now you're just playing dumb because you can't answer it. " there's no question" respond to my paradigm... This was like two pages back


Transitional period of socialism needs to occur you literally stated it

So then communism has social classes. Has power structure. Has government.

[Libertie76]

No, you're an idiot because you don't even try to understand anything. You've already made up your mind and you're hell-bent on twisting reality and arguments to conform to what you already believe to be true and you'll be damned if you're going to let anything like facts and rational argument get in your way.

I don't understand anything because everyone constinalty contradicts themselves

[Lord Testicles]

I don't understand anything because everyone constinalty contradicts themselves

No, you don't understand anything because you're wilfully being stupid.

[Blake's Baby]

15 pages ago people suggested you read some Marx and Engels to help you get your head round some of these concepts. It's not our fault you didn't, and don't understand them now.

Pretty much the first thing in the Communist Manifesto is 'the history of all hitherto-existing societies is the history of class struggle'. Really, Marxism 101 stuff.

The class nature of society - what it is, what it isn't, how it patterns everything else - is in there right from the start. But if you start with 'rah rah, the state, yadda yadda, that's not capitalism anyway' then, unfortunately, you need to educate yourself in what we are actually talking about, not what you think we are talking about. And, again, I don't see that we can be blamed if you don't.

[Libertie76]

You would think someone with such an interest in the dictionary would have come to that conclusion sooner. :rolleyes:

utopia
noun
An imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect. The opposite of dystopia.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/utopia

(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/utopia)
(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/utopia)
All I'm trying to do is find something simple enough for you.

(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/utopia)

Imagined
Form a mental image or concept of

Pretty funny considering every political thought is originally imagined nice try you blithering idiot that refuses to put fact to anything u say

[Libertie76]

No, you don't understand anything because you're wilfully being stupid.

I'm wilfully stupid because I have to try to communicate to you in some way

[Blake's Baby]

I am not restating my question I asked twice already and got no answer. I actually told you three times and you directly replied to all three. Now you're just playing dumb because you can't answer it. " there's no question" respond to my paradigm... This was like two pages back


Transitional period of socialism needs to occur you literally stated it

So then communism has social classes. Has power structure. Has government.

Well, the fact that you won't even make clear what the 'question' is supposed to be I think proves you don't have one.

Fine, if you can't source it from Marx, source it from me, I don't care where you attempt to find an explanation, but I suggest you find one.

No, and if you think it has, then you are so very wrong that I wonder if you've understood anything in the last 15 pages.

[Libertie76]

15 pages ago people suggested you read some Marx and Engels to help you get your head round some of these concepts. It's not our fault you didn't, and don't understand them now.

Pretty much the first thing in the Communist Manifesto is 'the history of all hitherto-existing societies is the history of class struggle'. Really, Marxism 101 stuff.

The class nature of society - what it is, what it isn't, how it patterns everything else - is in there right from the start. But if you start with 'rah rah, the state, yadda yadda, that's not capitalism anyway' then, unfortunately, you need to educate yourself in what we are actually talking about, not what you think we are talking about. And, again, I don't see that we can be blamed if you don't.

I've already read Marx and the communist manifesto. You don't understand this, these questions are questions on my mind about the validity of this utopian state Marx dreamed of. I can't understand how it will work. I don't advocate for utopian capitalism. It's not possible. Just like utopian communism is not possible. Socialism will never break away from an ultimate ruling power structure that's just how it is, just like capitalism will always have greedy people trying to take advantage of the system

[Libertie76]

Well, the fact that you won't even make clear what the 'question' is supposed to be I think proves you don't have one.

Fine, if you can't source it from Marx, source it from me, I don't care where you attempt to find an explanation, but I suggest you find one.

No, and if you think it has, then you are so very wrong that I wonder if you've understood anything in the last 15 pages.

The difference (broadly) between Marxism and Anarchism is on the necessity for a transitional period (we're all socialists). But the transitional period is capitalism under the revolutionary proletarian dictatorship. It's not socialism. It's attempting to become socialism. But it isn't socialism until capitalism (that is, property, wage labour, commodity production, classes and states) have been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Your quote

[Lord Testicles]

Imagined
Form a mental image or concept of

Pretty funny considering every political thought is originally imagined nice try you blithering idiot that refuses to put fact to anything u say

:rolleyes:


I'm wilfully stupid because I have to try to communicate to you in some way

So you are being wilfully stupid then.

[Libertie76]

Well, the fact that you won't even make clear what the 'question' is supposed to be I think proves you don't have one.

Fine, if you can't source it from Marx, source it from me, I don't care where you attempt to find an explanation, but I suggest you find one.

No, and if you think it has, then you are so very wrong that I wonder if you've understood anything in the last 15 pages.

Yet you still completely failed to answer my paradigm. If there is true socialism occurring in its utopia state, I'll make it easy for you, the community is massing medicine, but then a few people get sick and a doctor says no we don't need that medicine anymore we need to produce this medicine, however another doctor says no you're wrong we need to produce this medicine. Who makes the judgement call on what medicine is produced? The majority of people? Then by definition is that a form of government? What if the majority is wrong and half the population die because they mass produced the wrong medicine, do people blame anyone or just kind of chalk it up as a loss, o well I just lost my mother and son to society's "bad".

Let me guess, we'll just produce both, there is still a doctor that is wrong and then said doctor would obviously be held reliable correct? Then who enforces and what penalty does he face for accidentally killing a quarter of the population who listened to his diagnosis, no body or the entire society at once. If that happens would the mass majority be a governing body?

So then, if the mass majority is the governing body that only leaves one explanation, there is a state, maybe not constant, but still a state. And thus, it still creates classes majority and minority. Maybe not classes in the sense of economic classes, but it separates society.

And let's remember we are talking about 7billion people all collaborating with no representation, for as soon as there is representation there is differences in control and the difference in control creates classes and seperation. Also, each citizen would need to be constantly informed on each issue in order for it to work without taking away freedom of people. Because there is no laws for the minute we create a law, we create a state.

How is this obvious paradigm resolved? If you can honestly answer that with any value I will read every book anyone has suggested on this forum. I have already read some of them and I don't know the answer.


This is my paradigm, question is answer the paradigm

[Libertie76]

Well, the fact that you won't even make clear what the 'question' is supposed to be I think proves you don't have one.

Fine, if you can't source it from Marx, source it from me, I don't care where you attempt to find an explanation, but I suggest you find one.

No, and if you think it has, then you are so very wrong that I wonder if you've understood anything in the last 15 pages.

1 - there is no 'transitional stage of communism'. I don't know what you mean there, nor what you are taking from Marx to reach that conclusion. A quote would help.

Remember how you said it was capitalism?

[Libertie76]

Well, the fact that you won't even make clear what the 'question' is supposed to be I think proves you don't have one.

Fine, if you can't source it from Marx, source it from me, I don't care where you attempt to find an explanation, but I suggest you find one.

No, and if you think it has, then you are so very wrong that I wonder if you've understood anything in the last 15 pages.

Marx distinguishes one class from another on the basis of two criteria: ownership of the means of production and control of the labor power of others. From this, he defines modern society as having three distinct classes:

i. Capitalists, or bourgeoisie, own the means of production and purchase the labor power of others

ii. Workers, or proletariat, do not own any means of production or the ability to purchase the labor power of others. Rather, they sell their own labor power.

iii. A small, transitional class known as the petite bourgeoisie own sufficient means of production but do not purchase labor power. Marx's Communist Manifesto fails to properly define the petite bourgeoisie beyond “smaller capitalists” (Marx and Engels, 1848, 25).

Class is thus determined by property relations not by income or status. These factors are determined by distribution and consumption, which mirror the production and power relations of classes.

He is talking about modern society, capitalism. Which you said is the transitional period to communism because Marx didn't want a dictatorship

[Redistribute the Rep]

I skipped a couple pages and then saw this :


the petite-bourgeoisie is not a class that is transitional between capitalist and communist society;

And I just burst out laughing. Where do people get these things? It's not even one of the official lies that are commonly perpetuated, so I assume he just made it up from nowhere

[Blake's Baby]

The difference (broadly) between Marxism and Anarchism is on the necessity for a transitional period (we're all socialists). But the transitional period is capitalism under the revolutionary proletarian dictatorship. It's not socialism. It's attempting to become socialism. But it isn't socialism until capitalism (that is, property, wage labour, commodity production, classes and states) have been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Your quote

And? The transition from capitalist society to socialist society begins in capitalist society, and it isn't socialism.

Exactly the opposite of what you said that it said...


...

Transitional period of socialism needs to occur you literally stated it

So then communism has social classes. Has power structure. Has government.

So, no, there is no 'transitional period of socialism'. You replaced the word 'to' in what I said with the word 'of' in what you said.

Still don't what you think you mean with the 'communism has classes' bit.

[Lord Testicles]

I skipped a couple pages and then saw this :



And I just burst out laughing. Where do people get these things? It's not even one of the official lies that are commonly perpetuated, so I assume he just made it up from nowhere

He read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_class_theory#Class_structure) and got the above.

[Libertie76]

And? The transition from capitalist society to socialist society begins in capitalist society, and it isn't socialism.

Exactly the opposite of what you said that it said...



So, no, there is no 'transitional period of socialism'. You replaced the word 'to' in what I said with the word 'of' in what you said.

Still don't what you think you mean with the 'communism has classes' bit.

I misunderstood what you said at first, then I realized what you said and realized that since the classes he's taking about is capitalist society it's the transitional period you explained to me

[Blake's Baby]

Right, but there are still classes in the transitional period. The transitional period is when the revolution is happening, but isn't complete. Capitalism hasn't been completely destroyedd, but it is in the process of being turned to human ends.

[Libertie76]

He read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_class_theory#Class_structure) and got the above.

Why don't you read my replies dumbass dim whit numskull

[Libertie76]

Right, but there are still classes in the transitional period. The transitional period is when the revolution is happening, but isn't complete. Capitalism hasn't been completely destroyedd, but it is in the process of being turned to human ends.

Transitional period of socialism, not from socialism. Is what I literally said

[Creative Destruction]

Transitional period of socialism, not from socialism. Is what I literally said

No, it's not a transitional period "of" socialism. Socialism doesn't happen until all capitalist relations have been abolished. The transitional period is a period of revolution that is geared toward the goal of socialism; necessarily, since it's coming from a capitalist society, there will be vestiges of the previous society until they have been abolished.

[Blake's Baby]

Transitional period of socialism, not from socialism. Is what I literally said

No; transitional period to socialism. Like, the highway 'of' Russia, is a highway that exists inside Russia; the highway 'to' Russia, is a highway that exists somewhere else.

You mean the the transition 'of' capitalism, not socialism. The transition 'of' capitalism, is the transition 'to' socialism.

So don't try claiming that the transition of capitalism means the tranistion of socialism.

It is literally the opposite of what you said.

[JahLemon]

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b34/Andra1/FailFile/Thread-Crap-ComicBookGuy.jpg

[Libertie76]

No; transitional period to socialism. Like, the highway 'of' Russia, is a highway that exists inside Russia; the highway 'to' Russia, is a highway that exists somewhere else.

You mean the the transition 'of' capitalism, not socialism. The transition 'of' capitalism, is the transition 'to' socialism.

So don't try claiming that the transition of capitalism means the tranistion of socialism.

It is literally the opposite of what you said.

Good attempt to play on words to try to switch the subject of answering my question. You guys are really ridiculous. It's the exact same thing you're out of control.

Transitional period to socialism, is the begining stages of socialism, so it's the transitional period of socialism I'm done trying to explain how I came to the conclusion. Now answer the question I asked or stop responding because it's utterly useless.

[Blake's Baby]

No. It is capitalism that is in transition, not socialism, so it it is the transition of capitalism.

Now, as we've seen, you think capitalism and socialism are the same thing, so I'm hardly surprised your confused, but if you had actually absorbed anything over the last 16 pages, then you'd at least be able to tell where you were wrong.

So; you are wrong about a transition of socialism, there is a transition of capitalism. When capitalist society has been transformed, it becomes socialism. Is that clear?

Now; why on earth do you think there are classes in communist society?

[Libertie76]

No. It is capitalism that is in transition, not socialism, so it it is the transition of capitalism.

Now, as we've seen, you think capitalism and socialism are the same thing, so I'm hardly surprised your confused, but if you had actually absorbed anything over the last 16 pages, then you'd at least be able to tell where you were wrong.

So; you are wrong about a transition of socialism, there is a transition of capitalism. When capitalist society has been transformed, it becomes socialism. Is that clear?

Now; why on earth do you think there are classes in communist society?

Ooo wow you really enjoy trying to move words around and you're really good at AVOIDING MY QUESTION

CAPITALISM AND SOCIALISM ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE MEANS FOR PRODUCTION ARE EITHER CAPITALLY BASED OR SOCIALLY BASED THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE

in order to truly achieve that you need a system that can ensure that, communism or a republic.

If you have communism then I showed how there might not be economic differences when it comes to social standings in society but there is differences in the entire society with doctors telling what workers should make in accordance to the fact that doctors know what medicine is needed. I'm not going over my paradigm win you.

Marx identified the three classes of capitalism as capitalists, workers, and small capitalists. But he didn't answer the obvious paradigm of what I proposed is that even though you take money out of the equation there is still social differences. No no no not hair left hand right hand like you say, but differences in expertise in subjects of necessity.

You decided that since Marx defined class as these three things that this is the definition of class you're wrong

noun
a division of a society based on social and economic status.
"people from different social classes and walks of life"

That is the definition of class, if you take economic out of the definition there is still a division of society based in social status this can not be avoided. Marx defines class in three things according to capitalism. He says these are the classes ofcapitalism. However I am suggesting that this paradigm shows there are the classes of socialism and you're refusing to answer that.


You also forget to respond to the entire other half of my paradigm which is regards to governing. If there is any representation the only thing to protect representation would be LAW thus allocating for a system of governing. Then the representation would be a state in the practiced social structure of socialism.

[Lord Testicles]

Marx identified the three classes of capitalism as capitalists, workers, and small capitalists. But he didn't answer the obvious paradigm of what I proposed is that even though you take money out of the equation there is still social differences. No no no not hair left hand right hand like you say, but differences in expertise in subjects of necessity.

You decided that since Marx defined class as these three things that this is the definition of class you're wrong

noun
a division of a society based on social and economic status.
"people from different social classes and walks of life"

That is the definition of class, if you take economic out of the definition there is still a division of society based in social status this can not be avoided. Marx defines class in three things according to capitalism. He says these are the classes ofcapitalism. However I am suggesting that this paradigm shows there are the classes of socialism and you're refusing to answer that.


nauLgZISozs

[The Feral Underclass]

So dictionary.com is not a revolutionary theory aid?

[Blake's Baby]

Ooo wow you really enjoy trying to move words around and you're really good at AVOIDING MY QUESTION..

No, you're just really bad at asking questions.

I've already told you that I don't care how you define things, but if you want to understand my answers, you have to understand my definitions. I don't care what the dictionary says about socialism, or class; when socialists talk about class, they're talking about it in a specific technical way. 'Sociological class' doesn't mean anything in a discussion about socialism. Much as, if you talk to a physicist, you need to understand the language the physicist used. Now you can talk about fluxes in the aether if you like, or you can believe that electricity is tiny little thunderbolts sent by Zeus, but you cannot assume that the physicist believes in these things.



...
CAPITALISM AND SOCIALISM ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE MEANS FOR PRODUCTION ARE EITHER CAPITALLY BASED OR SOCIALLY BASED THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE...

Capitalism and socialism are different because in one, there is a property- and class-system, and in the other, production is for need not profit and there is no class-system, state, or property. That is the difference.


...in order to truly achieve that you need a system that can ensure that, communism or a republic...

Well, no, a state can't ensure a non-state; but to ensure communism, we need communism, sure. But that's a tautology - 'communism = communism'. Yes, yes it does. What is it that you're getting at?


...If you have communism then I showed how there might not be economic differences when it comes to social standings in society but there is differences in the entire society with doctors telling what workers should make in accordance to the fact that doctors know what medicine is needed. I'm not going over my paradigm win you...

Yes, doctors need to get people to make drugs. The people who make the drugs need to get other people to make electricity to power the machines and lights in the place they make the drugs. The people who work in the power-plants need other people to grow food so they can eat and therefore live while they work at the power plant. The people who grow the food need doctors to look after them... but none of this is a class-system.

Do you see that everything is inter-related? Or do you not?


...Marx identified the three classes of capitalism as capitalists, workers, and small capitalists. But he didn't answer the obvious paradigm of what I proposed is that even though you take money out of the equation there is still social differences. No no no not hair left hand right hand like you say, but differences in expertise in subjects of necessity...

So? How is that important? Unless you think doctors will spend all their time growing food and running water desalination plants, why does the fact that I can do x but not y, and you can do y but not z, and someone else can do z but not x, matter? These aren't different classes. They're just different skill-sets.


...You decided that since Marx defined class as these three things that this is the definition of class you're wrong

noun
a division of a society based on social and economic status.
"people from different social classes and walks of life"

That is the definition of class, if you take economic out of the definition there is still a division of society based in social status this can not be avoided. Marx defines class in three things according to capitalism. He says these are the classes ofcapitalism. However I am suggesting that this paradigm shows there are the classes of socialism and you're refusing to answer that...

Well, as that's the definition of class I'm using, if you don't like it, you'll have to find a different word, but I'm still going to call it 'class' because that's what it is.

I'm still not sure what it is I refused to answer, you already said you asked me twice and I answered you three times (maths doesn't seem to be your strong-point either). Different skill-sets are not different classes. Class is a question of relationship to the means of production.

In capitalism:
Bourgeoisie - OWNS means of production, EMPLOYS workers, DOES NOT work

Proletariat - DOES NOT own means of production, EMPLOYED BY bourgeoisie

Petite-Bourgeoisie - OWNS means of production, EMPLOYS workers, DOES work

In socialism:
Whole of people - DO NOT OWN means of production, DO NOT EMPLOY others, DO work

There is no other class to fill in there. Everyone has the same relationship to the means of production therefore no class system.


...You also forget to respond to the entire other half of my paradigm which is regards to governing. If there is any representation the only thing to protect representation would be LAW thus allocating for a system of governing. Then the representation would be a state in the practiced social structure of socialism.

I don't think this is the case. The works unit sends a delegate to the local council. The delegate is tasked by the works unit to do a job for them. Why does this need LAW? What's wrong with 'some instructions'?

If you get in a taxi, is the taxi driver THE STATE? No, he's someone doing something you've directed him to do. If you get someone to paint your house, are they THE GOVERNMENT OF LAW? No, they're someone doing a job for you. So why is a delegate to a local council different?

Maybe, if you get in to a taxi and tell the driver where you need to be, it's you who is the THE STATE OF LAW. I don't know, you aren't very good at explaining your points I'm afraid.

[Libertie76]

No, it's not a transitional period "of" socialism. Socialism doesn't happen until all capitalist relations have been abolished. The transitional period is a period of revolution that is geared toward the goal of socialism; necessarily, since it's coming from a capitalist society, there will be vestiges of the previous society until they have been abolished.

The mentality of transition from capitalism to socialism is the exact same thing as the transition of socialism from capitalism correct? Look you said it yourself,

" the transitional period is a period of revolution that is geared toward the goal of socialism, necessarily, since it's coming from a capitalist society..."

So it's a transition period of socialism from capitalism

The transitional period is the period where society practices capitalism but then there is a revolution abolishing all capitalism in society creating socialism.

So by that definition it's transition from capitalism to socialism.

Do you see and understand how they mean the exact same thing, transitional period of socialism and transitional period to socialism? I don't think I can be clearer on how they are the exact same thing here....

The only reason anyone is even fretting on these word plays is because they can't answer the paradigm

[Blake's Baby]

It's a transitional period of capitalism, not of socialism. 'Transition of socialism' means socialism is transformed - into what, no-one knows, as no-one is advocating it. 'Transition of capitalism' means capitalism is transformed, into socialism.

The transitional period is the period where the revolution is taking place, where the revolutionary transformation of society has begun, but has not finished.

"So by that definition it's transition from capitalism to socialism..." I completely agree with. The transition is from capitalism to socialism - not from socialism to anything else, not within socialism. From capitalism to socialism. In other words, a transformation of capitalism. NOT a 'transformation of socialism'.

[Redistribute the Rep]

THE MEANS FOR PRODUCTION ARE EITHER CAPITALLY BASED OR SOCIALLY BASED THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE


Huh? What do 'capitally' based and 'socially' based even mean? There's still capital in socialism, and there's social relations in capitalism, so... I really don't know what to make of this comment.



That is the definition of class, if you take economic out of the definition there is still a division of society based in social status this can not be avoided. Marx defines class in three things according to capitalism. He says these are the classes ofcapitalism. However I am suggesting that this paradigm shows there are the classes of socialism and you're refusing to answer that.


I'll leave you with some Marx:


property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

How will there be divisions of social status when the property is collectively owned?

[Libertie76]

No, you're just really bad at asking questions.

I've already told you that I don't care how you define things, but if you want to understand my answers, you have to understand my definitions. I don't care what the dictionary says about socialism, or class; when socialists talk about class, they're talking about it in a specific technical way. 'Sociological class' doesn't mean anything in a discussion about socialism. Much as, if you talk to a physicist, you need to understand the language the physicist used. Now you can talk about fluxes in the aether if you like, or you can believe that electricity is tiny little thunderbolts sent by Zeus, but you cannot assume that the physicist believes in these things.




Capitalism and socialism are different because in one, there is a property- and class-system, and in the other, production is for need not profit and there is no class-system, state, or property. That is the difference.



Well, no, a state can't ensure a non-state; but to ensure communism, we need communism, sure. But that's a tautology - 'communism = communism'. Yes, yes it does. What is it that you're getting at?



Yes, doctors need to get people to make drugs. The people who make the drugs need to get other people to make electricity to power the machines and lights in the place they make the drugs. The people who work in the power-plants need other people to grow food so they can eat and therefore live while they work at the power plant. The people who grow the food need doctors to look after them... but none of this is a class-system.

Do you see that everything is inter-related? Or do you not?



So? How is that important? Unless you think doctors will spend all their time growing food and running water desalination plants, why does the fact that I can do x but not y, and you can do y but not z, and someone else can do z but not x, matter? These aren't different classes. They're just different skill-sets.



Well, as that's the definition of class I'm using, if you don't like it, you'll have to find a different word, but I'm still going to call it 'class' because that's what it is.

I'm still not sure what it is I refused to answer, you already said you asked me twice and I answered you three times (maths doesn't seem to be your strong-point either). Different skill-sets are not different classes. Class is a question of relationship to the means of production.

In capitalism:
Bourgeoisie - OWNS means of production, EMPLOYS workers, DOES NOT work

Proletariat - DOES NOT own means of production, EMPLOYED BY bourgeoisie

Petite-Bourgeoisie - OWNS means of production, EMPLOYS workers, DOES work

In socialism:
Whole of people - DO NOT OWN means of production, DO NOT EMPLOY others, DO work

There is no other class to fill in there. Everyone has the same relationship to the means of production therefore no class system.



I don't think this is the case. The works unit sends a delegate to the local council. The delegate is tasked by the works unit to do a job for them. Why does this need LAW? What's wrong with 'some instructions'?

If you get in a taxi, is the taxi driver THE STATE? No, he's someone doing something you've directed him to do. If you get someone to paint your house, are they THE GOVERNMENT OF LAW? No, they're someone doing a job for you. So why is a delegate to a local council different?

Maybe, if you get in to a taxi and tell the driver where you need to be, it's you who is the THE STATE OF LAW. I don't know, you aren't very good at explaining your points I'm afraid.

Plain and simple, doctor decides what medicine needs to be made another says this needs to be made one person is wrong. How do we hold that doctor responsible

Doctor dictates what needs to be created in factories, holding higher social standing then a factory worker. Because a factory worker can not dictate to a doctor what needs to be made. However, even if a factory did tell the doctor what they need to make something that would require every factory worker to fully understand what is needed. Then it would no longer have any assembly line work, because that is simply not possible, thus showing the doctor has more of a society influence then a factory worker, thus creating a difference in society standings in relations to, meaning different level of social class.

The council you speak of is a form of government because they are deciding the policies do the society. That council governs over the delegates, thus creating separation in society which is why Marx did not want government because it causes division. Or social classes.

The thought that everyone relies on each other you are correct about that, but this paradigm you refuse to answer because you obviously can't shows how society will always have separation and differences that will always create classes ALWAYS not capitalist classes like Marx defined it but classes as the way I've defined it for you in a bunch of posts!

The reason Marx wanted to get rid of classes is because it divides society, however this paradigm proves there will always be a division in society that we can not escape. At least not at this present point of time, and neither capitalism or communism simply can not do it.

Law is an embodiment of force, the instructions need to be controlled by an executive force. If some one breaks the law, if someone doesn't follow instructions then there needs to be a response to sustain civility in society.

The taxi driver phrase is useless because if he asks you to leave his property and you refuse then action of the state must take place according to the laws of property.

If someone paints your house depending on you agreement of paint there is a level of law between he two of you. If someone breaks the contract they are in violation of the law requiring state to intervene.

You have absolutly no idea what government and law is. I'm showing if a dr makes a mistake of killing a big portion of the population and the majority of the people take action against the doctor. The majority of people are acting as the state, or the embodiment of government.

But then the minority is acting as a separate social class in society different from the majority, creating hierarchy and creating division, LOOK AT STALIN THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS. You're responses are Strictly absurd.

[Tim Cornelis]

However I am suggesting that this paradigm shows there are the classes of socialism and you're refusing to answer that.

There are no classes in the Marxist sense (and there are no classes by most sociological definitions).



The only reason anyone is even fretting on these word plays is because they can't answer the paradigm

You may need to consult a linguist. 'Answering a paradigm'? I'm not sure how that works. A paradigm is a theoretical framework, a particular lens through which you observe the world. But what 'paradigm' do you want answered then? I missed the question.

[Libertie76]

Huh? What do 'capitally' based and 'socially' based even mean? There's still capital in socialism, and there's social relations in capitalism, so... I really don't know what to make of this comment.



I'll leave you with some Marx:



How will there be divisions of social status when the property is collectively owned?

"The excess (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/excess) of a company’s assets (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/asset) over its liabilities (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/liability)." That is capital

"Relating to society (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/society) or its organization" That is social

Capitalism is the drive for production to produce CAPITAL socialism is the drive for production to produce to benefit SOCIETY. IF ALL CAPITAL GOES TO SOCIETY ITS SOCIALISM, IF ALL CAPITAL GOES TO PROFIT, OR CAPITAL ITS CAPITALISM

I already explained to you in the paradigm I have posted how social division takes place.

"Social class is this. noun A division of a society (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/society) based (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/base#base) on social and economic (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/economic) status (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/status): people (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/people) from different (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/different) social classes and walks of life (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/walk)"

Marxist definition of social class, IN CAPITALISM, is based on private property

The definition of social class is not Property in capitalism, but much broader like I posted. SO IF THERE IS DIVISION IN SOCIAL STATUS THERE IS SOCIAL CLASS DIVISION

Get it? Its not that difficult to understand. If all property Is privately owned, yes there wont be social classes based on property BUT THERE STILL WILL BE DIFFERENCES BASED IN SOCIETY. Which is how I explained it. You are not answering anything at all

[Tim Cornelis]

Doctor dictates what needs to be created in factories, holding higher social standing then [sic!] a factory worker. Because a factory worker can not dictate to a doctor what needs to be made.

Sure he can. The doctor 'dictates' (requests) that a certain amount of a certain kind of medicine and equipment is made on the basis of what consumers, the patients, need. The patients may be factory workers, or another type of producer, or a non-producer (e.g. child).


However, even if a factory did tell the doctor what they need to make something that would require every factory worker to fully understand what is needed. Then it would no longer have any assembly line work, because that is simply not possible, thus showing the doctor has more of a society influence then [sic!] a factory worker, thus creating a difference in society standings in relations to, meaning different level of social class.

Not social class in the Marxist sense, and not social class as it's generally defined sociologically.


The council you speak of is a form of government because they are deciding the policies do the society. That council governs over the delegates, thus creating separation in society which is why Marx did not want government because it causes division. Or social classes.

Marx didn't 'want' or 'not want' a government. His analysis of society is descriptive not prescriptive.

There is no separation between rules and rulers in communism because the councils are merely responsible for collective consumption, not coercive authority, and are directly authorised by general open assemblies wherein all willing can participate via mandates and recallability.


The thought that everyone relies on each other you are correct about that, but this paradigm you refuse to answer because you obviously can't shows how society will always have separation and differences that will always create classes ALWAYS not capitalist classes like Marx defined it but classes as the way I've defined it for you in a bunch of posts!

Okay, then communism has classes, but not social classes in the Marxist sense, or by most sociological standards. Classes of people, punkers and goths, or footballers and bodybuilers. Those are classes too. So yes, communism will have classes. But this is not a meaningful observation to make.


The reason Marx wanted to get rid of classes is because it divides society, however this paradigm proves there will always be a division in society that we can not escape. At least not at this present point of time, and neither capitalism or communism simply can not do it.

You invented that Marx "wanted to get rid of classes ... because it divides society" in order to make the rest of the argument. Marx said nothing of the kind. And the argument is silly because then football invalidates communism because football divides between two teams. I'm sorry, but all your arguments are silly. You're trying too hard to refute communism without fist investing time in researching it.


If someone paints your house depending on you agreement of paint there is a level of law between he two of you. If someone breaks the contract they are in violation of the law requiring state to intervene.

And there you go reinventing words again.


You have absolutly no idea what government and law is.

You barely master English.

[Blake's Baby]

Plain and simple, doctor decides what medicine needs to be made another says this needs to be made one person is wrong. How do we hold that doctor responsible...

I still don't understand what you're trying to ask here.

How do we decide who is right and who is wrong? Examine the evidence.


... Doctor dictates what needs to be created in factories, holding higher social standing then a factory worker. Because a factory worker can not dictate to a doctor what needs to be made. However, even if a factory did tell the doctor what they need to make something that would require every factory worker to fully understand what is needed. Then it would no longer have any assembly line work, because that is simply not possible, thus showing the doctor has more of a society influence then a factory worker, thus creating a difference in society standings in relations to, meaning different level of social class...

... and the factory worker decides what power is needed and the power worker decides what food is needed and the farmer decides what medicines are needed... do you not see the point here? Everyone has specialised knowledge. This does not mean these are different classes. Class is about relationship to the means of production. Everyone has the same relationship, therefore everyone is the same class (ie, there is no class because you can't have a 'class of everything').



...The council you speak of is a form of government because they are deciding the policies do the society. That council governs over the delegates, thus creating separation in society which is why Marx did not want government because it causes division. Or social classes...

How does the council 'govern' the delegates?


...The thought that everyone relies on each other you are correct about that, but this paradigm you refuse to answer because you obviously can't shows how society will always have separation and differences that will always create classes ALWAYS not capitalist classes like Marx defined it but classes as the way I've defined it for you in a bunch of posts! ...

If you want to use the word 'class' to mean 'people with different knowledge', go right ahead. But as none of us define class in that fashion - it is not an economic definition of class, it is a sociological definition - it has no meaning in this discussion.


...The reason Marx wanted to get rid of classes is because it divides society, however this paradigm proves there will always be a division in society that we can not escape. At least not at this present point of time, and neither capitalism or communism simply can not do it...

Interesting that you're pretending to know about Marx's psychology there. I'm sure you have some evidence for this.

Marx was talking about class as I am. Not some people knowing some things others don't. That's not class.


... Law is an embodiment of force, the instructions need to be controlled by an executive force. If some one breaks the law, if someone doesn't follow instructions then there needs to be a response to sustain civility in society.

The taxi driver phrase is useless because if he asks you to leave his property and you refuse then action of the state must take place according to the laws of property...

What are you talking about? The delegate is someone you send to the council to do a job for you and your colleagues, much as a taxi-driver does a job for you when he drives you to the airport.


... If someone paints your house depending on you agreement of paint there is a level of law between he two of you. If someone breaks the contract they are in violation of the law requiring state to intervene...

Again, I don't see the relevance of what you're saying. Why is someone sent to a council 'the state' but someone who paints your house 'not the state'? Both are doing things that they've been directed to do.


...You have absolutly no idea what government and law is. I'm showing if a dr makes a mistake of killing a big portion of the population and the majority of the people take action against the doctor. The majority of people are acting as the state, or the embodiment of government...

No, you're not. You're not 'showing' anything (nor, by the way, are you asking anything as far as I can tell). What you're doing is failing to explain a hypothetical. As far as I can see, what you seem to be claiming is that the fact doctors might be wrong means there will always be a state.

I think that's because of your peculiar definition of the term 'state' myself.

What is it that your are actually trying to express here?


...But then the minority is acting as a separate social class in society different from the majority, creating hierarchy and creating division, LOOK AT STALIN THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS. You're responses are Strictly absurd.

Which minority? Which majority? How are they different classes? What is the different relationship to the means of production?

Stalin was the leader of a capitalist country. What does that have to do with the creation of a socialist society?

[Libertie76]

Sure he can. The doctor 'dictates' (requests) that a certain amount of a certain kind of medicine and equipment is made on the basis of what consumers, the patients, need. The patients may be factory workers, or another type of producer, or a non-producer (e.g. child).



Not social class in the Marxist sense, and not social class as it's generally defined sociologically.



Marx didn't 'want' or 'not want' a government. His analysis of society is descriptive not prescriptive.

There is no separation between rules and rulers in communism because the councils are merely responsible for collective consumption, not coercive authority, and are directly authorised by general open assemblies wherein all willing can participate via mandates and recallability.



Okay, then communism has classes, but not social classes in the Marxist sense, or by most sociological standards. Classes of people, punkers and goths, or footballers and bodybuilers. Those are classes too. So yes, communism will have classes. But this is not a meaningful observation to make.



You invented that Marx "wanted to get rid of classes ... because it divides society" in order to make the rest of the argument. Marx said nothing of the kind. And the argument is silly because then football invalidates communism because football divides between two teams. I'm sorry, but all your arguments are silly. You're trying too hard to refute communism without fist investing time in researching it.



And there you go reinventing words again.



You barely master English.

Ok, so there is division in communism then?

[Libertie76]

i still don't understand what you're trying to ask here.

How do we decide who is right and who is wrong? Examine the evidence.



... And the factory worker decides what power is needed and the power worker decides what food is needed and the farmer decides what medicines are needed... Do you not see the point here? Everyone has specialised knowledge. This does not mean these are different classes. Class is about relationship to the means of production. Everyone has the same relationship, therefore everyone is the same class (ie, there is no class because you can't have a 'class of everything').




How does the council 'govern' the delegates?



If you want to use the word 'class' to mean 'people with different knowledge', go right ahead. But as none of us define class in that fashion - it is not an economic definition of class, it is a sociological definition - it has no meaning in this discussion.



Interesting that you're pretending to know about marx's psychology there. I'm sure you have some evidence for this.

Marx was talking about class as i am. Not some people knowing some things others don't. That's not class.



What are you talking about? The delegate is someone you send to the council to do a job for you and your colleagues, much as a taxi-driver does a job for you when he drives you to the airport.



Again, i don't see the relevance of what you're saying. Why is someone sent to a council 'the state' but someone who paints your house 'not the state'? Both are doing things that they've been directed to do.



No, you're not. You're not 'showing' anything (nor, by the way, are you asking anything as far as i can tell). What you're doing is failing to explain a hypothetical. As far as i can see, what you seem to be claiming is that the fact doctors might be wrong means there will always be a state.

I think that's because of your peculiar definition of the term 'state' myself.

What is it that your are actually trying to express here?



Which minority? Which majority? How are they different classes? What is the different relationship to the means of production?

Stalin was the leader of a capitalist country. What does that have to do with the creation of a socialist society?

what if the council the delegate goes to decides the delegate is wrong?

[Lord Testicles]

"Social class is this. noun A division of a society (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/society) based (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/base#base) on social and economic (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/economic) status (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/status): people (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/people) from different (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/different) social classes and walks of life (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/walk)"

Nobody is taking about or using that as the definition of class, so you can quote it as much as you want but all you are proving is that you are incapable of thought.

If you are in a chemistry class and the teacher is talking about a "base" then it's fucking worthless of you to butt in and announce:

"But sir, a base is one of the four stations that must be reached in turn to score a run in baseball, what's that got to do with chemistry?"

You utterly fucking moron shit-head.

[Blake's Baby]

Ok, so there is division in communism then?

Division between people who speak Japanese or play the flute or are left handed or like opera or don't like rain, and the opposites? Yes.

Classes? No.

[Blake's Baby]

what if the council the delegate goes to decides the delegate is wrong?

If the other delegates decide to adopt a different course of action, you mean?

Well, as I keep telling you, we won't all agree, otherwise we wouldn't need the council to air our positions, would we?

If there are 30 communities, let's say, and each sends a delegate to the council, and the council votes 29-1 to dam the valley to make a reservoir, then the community who sent a delegate that voted against is going to have to go back and say 'sorry comrades, I did my best, but I couldn't convince them of our point of view'. Meanwhile, the other 29 delegates go back and say 'good news! the reservoir scheme is going ahead!'

What's the problem?

[Libertie76]

Nobody is taking about or using that as the definition of class, so you can quote it as much as you want but all you are proving is that you are incapable of thought.

If you are in a chemistry class and the teacher is talking about a "base" then it's fucking worthless of you to butt in and announce:

"But sir, a base is one of the four stations that must be reached in turn to score a run in baseball, what's that got to do with chemistry?"

You utterly fucking moron shit-head.

Why are you even responding to me, I posted the defition of SOCIAL CLASS, I am not saying there's classes because people go to school, im saying BECAUSE A SOCIAL CLASS IS A SOCIETY DIVISION you fucking moron shit head

[Libertie76]

If the other delegates decide to adopt a different course of action, you mean?

Well, as I keep telling you, we won't all agree, otherwise we wouldn't need the council to air our positions, would we?

If there are 30 communities, let's say, and each sends a delegate to the council, and the council votes 29-1 to dam the valley to make a reservoir, then the community who sent a delegate that voted against is going to have to go back and say 'sorry comrades, I did my best, but I couldn't convince them of our point of view'. Meanwhile, the other 29 delegates go back and say 'good news! the reservoir scheme is going ahead!'

What's the problem?

So then the council is the ruling body, not the delegate correct?

[Lord Testicles]

I've just cracked it! I've worked out that there will be class in communism. What you lot don't understand is that class is defined as this:

Class:
showing stylish excellence.

So it looks like there will be class in communism after all. :(



Why are you even responding to me, I posted the defition of SOCIAL CLASS, I am not saying there's classes because people go to school, im saying BECAUSE A SOCIAL CLASS IS A SOCIETY DIVISION you fucking moron shit head

You're so thick it's depressing. If you only had a brain...

[Blake's Baby]

But it's irrelevant. Sociological definitions of class based on education, experience, size of car, colour of clothes, height of hairstyle or how many 'vons' you have in your name are completely irrelevant to what we're taking about.

Do you think we believe that as soon as we have the revolution, we'll all become interchangeably brilliant at everything? No, of course not.

'In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker'.

[Blake's Baby]

So then the council is the ruling body, not the delegate correct?

I dunno, is it? What if a regional council composed of 300 delegates from the whole area goes 'no look this dam scheme isn't going to work, we need to find other ways of managing water'?

I'm not sure a delegate can be a 'ruling body'. I'd say if there is any 'ruling body' it's the millions of assemblies that elect the delegates in the first place.

If you have an organisation, like a club, the assembly is usually the sovereign body. Then the assembly elects committees to do things - to be 'an executive'. But what they are 'executing' is the wishes of the assembly, yes? The publicity committee deals with the local press and putting up notices or whatever. The membership committee deals with new applications and getting lapsed members to rejoin. The publications committee sorts out the club's newsletter and website, or whatever. All of these are sub-committees of the sovereign body, yes? They do things, they are 'executives', but they don't rule the assembly.

So, the sovereign body (let's call it, for the sake of argument, 'Commune A') elects a 'delegation sub-committee' to go to a meeting with other 'delegation sub-committees' from Communes B, C, D, E... etc etc.

So where is the 'state' here? Is it in the Communes? Is it in the meetings between the Communes? You tell me.

[Libertie76]

I dunno, is it? What if a regional council composed of 300 delegates from the whole area goes 'no look this dam scheme isn't going to work, we need to find other ways of managing water'?

I'm not sure a delegate can be a 'ruling body'. I'd say if there is any 'ruling body' it's the millions of assemblies that elect the delegates in the first place.

If you have an organisation, like a club, the assembly is usually the sovereign body. Then the assembly elects committees to do things - to be 'an executive'. But what they are 'executing' is the wishes of the assembly, yes? The publicity committee deals with the local press and putting up notices or whatever. The membership committee deals with new applications and getting lapsed members to rejoin. The publications committee sorts out the club's newsletter and website, or whatever. All of these are sub-committees of the sovereign body, yes? They do things, they are 'executives', but they don't rule the assembly.

So, the sovereign body (let's call it, for the sake of argument, 'Commune A') elects a 'delegation sub-committee' to go to a meeting with other 'delegation sub-committees' from Communes B, C, D, E... etc etc.

So where is the 'state' here? Is it in the Communes? Is it in the meetings between the Communes? You tell me.

This first of all has nothing to do with my question, my question was simple is the council the ruling body, considering they make the final decision

If there is a ruling body, the ruling body is the governing force of society. A state exists with a form of central government. My question wasn't in regards to state it was in regards to if the council was a ruling body or not

[Blake's Baby]

This first of all has nothing to do with my question, my question was simple is the council the ruling body, considering they make the final decision

If there is a ruling body, the ruling body is the governing force of society. A state exists with a form of central government. My question wasn't in regards to state it was in regards to if the council was a ruling body or not

'the' ruling body... 'a' ruling body...

What do these terms mean in the example I've given? What do you mean by 'ruling'? Do you mean, 'is there a body that at some point makes a decision about something'? Yes of course. It might be the regional water-management council, in the case of the proposed dam. Is that a state? A government? I don't think so. It's an executive body.

Does it have jurisdiction over things outside its competence? No. No more than the Institute of Electrical Engineers - very good though it is on matters electrical - has any jurisdiction over air-traffic control or the rules of cricket.

'Government' is not the same as 'decision-making'.

[Libertie76]

'the' ruling body... 'a' ruling body...

What do these terms mean in the example I've given? What do you mean by 'ruling'? Do you mean, 'is there a body that at some point makes a decision about something'? Yes of course. It might be the regional water-management council, in the case of the proposed dam. Is that a state? A government? I don't think so. It's an executive body.

Does it have jurisdiction over things outside its competence? No. No more than the Institute of Electrical Engineers - very good though it is on matters electrical - has any jurisdiction over air-traffic control or the rules of cricket.

'Government' is not the same as 'decision-making'.

So the decision making of a council is not government. Ok, then what if one commune feels so strongly about a subject they decide to not listen to the council?

[Blake's Baby]

And do what, drown while the other communes build the dam and flood the valley? The regional water-management meeting still isn't a government.

[Libertie76]

And do what, drown while the other communes build the dam and flood the valley? The regional water-management meeting still isn't a government.

So your suggesting you are forced to accept what other delegates decide without any recourse? Or you die? What if the people that disagree with the decision decide to go and kill every single person in the council, would that start a civil war? Remember, there is no central government to take action on the murders.

[Creative Destruction]

This thread is 24 carat.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I ask a question and nobody answers, some clueless troll asks something and all the heavy artillery of revleft jumps in and posts hundreds of replies. Conclusion is forcing itself on me...

[Blake's Baby]

Conclusion being: no-one noticed your question.

What is it and where?

[Blake's Baby]

So your suggesting you are forced to accept what other delegates decide without any recourse? Or you die? What if the people that disagree with the decision decide to go and kill every single person in the council, would that start a civil war? Remember, there is no central government to take action on the murders.

Yeah, but what if bears could talk? Then what if an asteroid came and killed all the bears except one, but that bear liked the Dead Kennedys, what then, eh? WHAT THEN? IS THAT BEAR THE GOVERNMENT, that's what I want to know.

The increasingly unlikely and bizarre nature of your hypotheticals is making it more and more difficult to provide sensible answers to your points.

In capitalism, you cannot suddenly decide that you want a personal electricity supply of 643,000 volts. Or rather, you can decide it, but no-one else is going to do it for you. This is one of the few ways in which communist society will be like capitalist society. If you can't get agreement from other people for something, it isn't going to happen. Likewise, sometimes some things will happen that some people don't like. If there's agreement that a new road needs to be built, but disgreement over which way it should go, the different plans will be looked at and a vote of all those concerned will take place, and some people will be in a minority, so they will not get their way.

Call that government if you want, I call it decision-making.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Conclusion being: no-one noticed your question.

What is it and where?

Well, I think it's also indicative of a general tendency. :( No serious or otherwise discussion gets that many posts, unless, of course, it becomes a flame war.

Anyway, my most recent question was here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-you-socialist-t190936/index.html?p=2797514#post2797514

[Libertie76]

Yeah, but what if bears could talk? Then what if an asteroid came and killed all the bears except one, but that bear liked the Dead Kennedys, what then, eh? WHAT THEN? IS THAT BEAR THE GOVERNMENT, that's what I want to know.

The increasingly unlikely and bizarre nature of your hypotheticals is making it more and more difficult to provide sensible answers to your points.

In capitalism, you cannot suddenly decide that you want a personal electricity supply of 643,000 volts. Or rather, you can decide it, but no-one else is going to do it for you. This is one of the few ways in which communist society will be like capitalist society. If you can't get agreement from other people for something, it isn't going to happen. Likewise, sometimes some things will happen that some people don't like. If there's agreement that a new road needs to be built, but disgreement over which way it should go, the different plans will be looked at and a vote of all those concerned will take place, and some people will be in a minority, so they will not get their way.

Call that government if you want, I call it decision-making.

.... So yes it would result in civil war or no it won't.

Capitalist societies today have government and law, many people disagree but they are by law forced not to take any action in restricting other peoples civil liberties. If they do take direct action then they are held to the law. This law is executed by the state.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, I know how capitalist society works, I live in it.

I don't know, I really don't think that the situation would arise.

Do you think that the only reason people don't just shoot each other over planning applications is the law? I suspect it's because most people aren't assholes most of the time.

[Libertie76]

Yeah, I know how capitalist society works, I live in it.

I don't know, I really don't think that the situation would arise.

Do you think that the only reason people don't just shoot each other over planning applications is the law? I suspect it's because most people aren't assholes most of the time.

There's nothing that could prevent it. Most people aren't assholes, but when decisions happen people do find things to kill and die for. Such as a pandemic occurring and the committee you speak of making the wrong decision might make people want to decide a different decision. That does not make them assholes. Or even a committee establishing that religion is no longer allowed to be practiced in work and Muslims believing that they have to pray 5 times a day or they won't go to heaven might want to kill to because there is no other way to allow themselves to do said practice.

[Sinister Intents]

There's nothing that could prevent it. Most people aren't assholes, but when decisions happen people do find things to kill and die for. Such as a pandemic occurring and the committee you speak of making the wrong decision might make people want to decide a different decision. That does not make them assholes. Or even a committee establishing that religion is no longer allowed to be practiced in work and Muslims believing that they have to pray 5 times a day or they won't go to heaven might want to kill to because there is no other way to allow themselves to do said practice.

I think you're reaching a bit here. Stupid shit of course happens, butb let's not make assumptions. When you assume You make an ASS out of U and ME

[Libertie76]

Yeah, I know how capitalist society works, I live in it.

I don't know, I really don't think that the situation would arise.

Do you think that the only reason people don't just shoot each other over planning applications is the law? I suspect it's because most people aren't assholes most of the time.

And furthermore, if it is in planning applications, like your example of building a dam, many people are willing to kill and die for these things.

They will take it as a forced construction in their environment, take a look at the American native americans and their response to the European settlers. They most certainly were willing to kill and die for what they saw as their personal land. Take a look at the revolutionaries in south America when government sponsored mega multi national corporations came and build dams in their society. They most certainly thought they could kill and die for it.

Remember, these mega corporations get the ok to build in these third world countries by delegates deciding if its economically better for, lets say Ecuador, through the world bank and the IMF. These are all regulated by representatives.

How would we stop people from deciding they are willing to kill and die for their environment if they do not agree with the counsels decision

[Libertie76]

I think you're reaching a bit here. Stupid shit of course happens, butb let's not make assumptions. When you assume You make an ASS out of U and ME

Youre right, I do assume communists to practice profit sharing, and I do assume capitalist to create jobs to produce personal capital. Which one do you fall into, or am I just making an ass out of everybody by assuming this.

Stupid shit happens, of course, but stupid shit will happen way more when there is no law. How can we advance at all? Let me ask you this, in a communist society will there be art?

[The Feral Underclass]

How would we stop people from deciding they are willing to kill and die for their environment if they do not agree with the counsels decision

How can you stop people from deciding things?

Well unless you'd created some kind of Minority Report pre-crime technology, you probably couldn't stop them. Or at least, you couldn't reasonably expect a comprehensive solution to be presented to you right now for a situation that may or may not arise and couldn't really be planned for anyway until it was actually happening.

There are literally an infinite amount of scenarios of people doing all manner of things in any kind of society. Your expectation that people on this board should have a list of solutions to refer to is ridiculous.

I haven't read this thread at all, so I don't really know what you're arguing for, but if the basis for your objection to communism is that we don't have comprehensive plans for dealing with every esoteric hypothetical event that may occur, then you're either a troll or you're deeply neurotic. Which is it?


Stupid shit happens, of course, but stupid shit will happen way more when there is no law.

What is a law? Has anyone here suggested that society wouldn't have certain rules to regulate things? Because if they had then they are wrong.

[Libertie76]

How can you stop people from deciding things?

Well unless you'd created some kind of Minority Report pre-crime technology, you probably couldn't stop them. Or at least, you couldn't reasonably expect a comprehensive solution to be presented to you right now for a situation that may or may not arise and couldn't really be planned for anyway until it was actually happening.

There are literally an infinite amount of scenarios of people doing all manner of things in any kind of society. Your expectation that people on this board should have a list of solutions to refer to is ridiculous.

I haven't read this thread at all, so I don't really know what you're arguing for, but if the basis for your objection to communism is that we don't have comprehensive plans for dealing with every esoteric hypothetical event that may occur, then you're either a troll or you're deeply neurotic. Which is it?



What is a law? Has anyone here suggested that society wouldn't have certain rules to regulate things? Because if they had then they are wrong.

The point is that there is nothing defend the actions of the council besides a majority of people, and if its something worth killing and dying for it would always result in a civil war.

How ever, an allowance of civil liberties creates other optionsto change policies, so people in a society would want to be politically active rather then picking up a gun and fighting.

Its true these scenarios will always happen all over the world, but the reality is that we have a government to protect us from this. They are responsible to take action deemed necessary.

In this communist state everybody falls in the same class of production, so there can not be a police force because they are a separate entity to the process of production. There can not be a military because they are a separate part of production. They protect the production not produce. It allocates for separate classes.

Also, in order for there to be a police or military there would need to be law to have rules these police or military abide by, but if they don't who decides they are wrong?

Its not about keeping people from deciding this, its about protection of law. The only way we can have law is if there is an executive branch of government protecting the law. Thus creating a state making it impossible to have a communist society with absolutely no state.

If im wrong id like to know how, this is the paradigm I discuss when I talk earlier about the doctor deciding what pill to take and who holds who responsible for a mistake.

You act like this is hypothetical, no its not hypothetical its a fact that an issue like this will happen unless you have a strong central government.

[Blake's Baby]

So... now you want a strong central government?

[Libertie76]

so... Now you want a strong central government?

no, if the means of production are regulated by councels, the only way to protect the councels is to have a strong central government. We cant have a weak central government if its responsible for allocating all capital back to society. It can not happen. Because the councels will effectivly become part of the government the minute the law protects their decisions.

However, in a society where there is not a forced redisbursment of wealth there can be a limited central government because it can not overstep civil liberties of the people, if there is forced redisbursment there is a forced overstep of civil liberties if there isnt forced redisbursment there isnt a forced overstep civil liberties. Do you understand this?

[Blake's Baby]

'In a society where there is not forced redisbursment of wealth', like communism, you mean?

[Sinister Intents]

'In a society where there is not forced redisbursment of wealth', like communism, you mean?

No he means his anarchist capitalist utopia

[Blake's Baby]

But there is forced redisbursement of wealth in any system other than communism.

[Libertie76]

But there is forced redisbursement of wealth in any system other than communism.

Not free market capitalism.

[Libertie76]

No he means his anarchist capitalist utopia

Lol youre really funny I never said I didn't want any government at all, I do want to limit the power of government!

[Libertie76]

'In a society where there is not forced redisbursment of wealth', like communism, you mean?

If you don't think communism is a re-disbursement of capital then I have no idea what to say to you. Anyways like I said the only way to protect the processes of production would be government. The minute government gets involved it now becomes FORCED re-disbursement as opposed to just re-disbursement.

[Sinister Intents]

Not free market capitalism.

Yeah there would be, and the only way to have a free market is to not have a government and state.


Lol youre really funny I never said I didn't want any government at all, I do want to limit the power of government!

I want to destroy the market and capitalism, fuck reformist bullshit

[Blake's Baby]

Not free market capitalism.

Yes in capitalism (whether 'free market' or any other kind) because the social product - which is made by the working class - is taken by capitalists on the basis that they own the products of the means of production. All class societies are societies of 'forced redisbursment' because the producing classes are expropriated by the exploiting classes.

Only, not in communism; therefore it is the only society in which redisbursment is not forced.

[The Feral Underclass]

The point is that there is nothing defend the actions of the council besides a majority of people, and if its something worth killing and dying for it would always result in a civil war.

I keep reading this paragraph in order to construct a response and I really don't know how. The reason for that is because I don't really understand where the basis for your claim lies. Your arguing that when a decision is made that some don't agree with, this will somehow translate into upheaval on such a scale it would result in a civil war...

That seems such a preposterous leap in logic that I don't know where to begin in responding to it...Violence on this scale is not a reasonable response to disagreeing with a decision, is it?

Ultimately I don't accept that there would be a decision in a communist society that would need to be made that was so deeply profound that it would result in a fundamental split in the whole of society.

Communist society is based on everyone working as much as they can to provide everyone with what they need. Production, construction and distribution is predicated on that principle. This will invariably limit and decrease the amount of production that is actually carried out in society, freeing people up to live their lives outside of work.

If production, construction and distribution is organsied in this way it means that the work that people do is for themselves and their communities. People aren't alienated from the process of work or the process of deciding how that work is managed. Decisions that have to be made in the course of those tasks would be done purely on a pragmatic basis as a collective response to a problem facing society at large.

I cannot see, therefore, a situation that would result in a civil war...If a minority of people who were not happy with a decision felt compelled to use violence then society would respond in kind through defensive measures.


How ever, an allowance of civil liberties creates other optionsto change policies, so people in a society would want to be politically active rather then picking up a gun and fighting.

The concept of civil liberties was developed to mitigate deep divisions in a class society. It is a response to the objection of people in a class society against their oppression and alienation. "Liberties" are then created to pacify that dissent. They are simply a tool for the ruling class to maintain their control.

The need for specifically designated "civil liberties" would be redundant in a communist society, since no one is economically or politically alienated or oppressed. Participating in a political process and finding yourself at the contrary side of a democratic majority decision, is not equitable to being alienated and oppressed by a political process based on your economic or racial status.


Its true these scenarios will always happen all over the world, but the reality is that we have a government to protect us from this. They are responsible to take action deemed necessary.

Your argument is disingenuous. The term government is essentially a term of vagueness. Admittedly it is rather a loaded term and one I would avoid personally, but in reality the term government simply means the organisation of the administration of society.

When you use the word government, however, you do so to mean a "centralised government." Government and "central" government are not the same thing. Your attempt to make them the same thing is a neat little way for you to try and win this discussion. But is a lie.

No one objects to government (even those who say they object to the term government). What is objected to is the idea of a "central" government and your claim that a central government is required to exclusively defend society against malcontents is absolutely wrong.


In this communist state everybody falls in the same class of production, so there can not be a police force because they are a separate entity to the process of production. There can not be a military because they are a separate part of production. They protect the production not produce. It allocates for separate classes.

Class is an economic relationship. When those relationships are destroyed through the revolutionary process, there will no loner be a class. Production, construction etc become socially necessary work, just as public protection will be, and then managed on that basis.


Also, in order for there to be a police or military there would need to be law to have rules these police or military abide by, but if they don't who decides they are wrong?

The day-to-day management of public safety would be the responsibility of everyone in society as we went about our daily lives. For those situations where there is violence on a scale that required a more specialised response, a militia would be called upon to respond. That militia would be made up just as any other work was made up: by volunteers, probably on a rotational basis and managed with community oversight.


Its not about keeping people from deciding this, its about protection of law. The only way we can have law is if there is an executive branch of government protecting the law. Thus creating a state making it impossible to have a communist society with absolutely no state.

The limited scope of your political imagination is the only thing that concludes an "executive branch" and "central government" is necessary to adminsiter public protection.

But of course your argument comes from the premise that human beings are inherently incapable of managing their own affairs unless constrained by institution. Again, you are wrong.


If im wrong id like to know how, this is the paradigm I discuss when I talk earlier about the doctor deciding what pill to take and who holds who responsible for a mistake.

Society would hold her responsible.


You act like this is hypothetical, no its not hypothetical its a fact that an issue like this will happen unless you have a strong central government.

Technically it is hypothetical.

Anyway, a central government is just one form of government. Being an advocate of "strong" centralism doesn't actually qualify it as the only form of government that can administer management of society. That is simply your ideological projections and bears no relation to reality.

I'm reminded of a Wilhelm Weitling quote: "In the perfect society there is no government, only administration. No laws, only obligation. No punishments, only remedies." This quote may seem trite and semantic, but actually it identifies the fundamental difference in conceptualisation and the different way of thinking for reactionaries and revolutionaries.

[Sinister Intents]

If you don't think communism is a re-disbursement of capital then I have no idea what to say to you. Anyways like I said the only way to protect the processes of production would be government. The minute government gets involved it now becomes FORCED re-disbursement as opposed to just re-disbursement.

Communism isn't redistribution of wealth. It is the collectivization of the means of production, the lack of a centralized state, decentralized organizing bodies of individuals collectively, the lack oc a money economy. I'm not sure you're understanding any of what we're saying because of your delusions

[The Feral Underclass]

no, if the means of production are regulated by councels, the only way to protect the councels is to have a strong central government.

No. You protect a council by having people available to protect it. The ideological formation of that protection is your prejudiced outlook. It is not a fact.

[Blake's Baby]

Mistress Sinistra, I think I have to disagree; all social systems involve redistribution of wealth, because social wealth is created by human labour, and therefore by some producing class (in capitalism it's the working class, obviously). But every society has involved a system of sharing the wealth create by the producers with other members of society (even in hunter-gatherer societies, though these don't necessarily have to have involved 'classes').

Children, the elderly, the injured - these don't necessarily produce any social wealth, and yet if they didn't consume social wealth, they'd die. This then must mean that all societies had (and I think will have) an element of 'disbursment of social wealth' - from the producers to the non-producers. Though, as many hunter-gatherers didn't, and the future communist society won't, have any class systems, there will be no force involved.

[Libertie76]

Yeah there would be, and the only way to have a free market is to not have a government and state.



I want to destroy the market and capitalism, fuck reformist bullshit

You're completely wrong about this, there is government and state without any intervention on the capital. I don't understand how you think this is impossible please tell me.

[Sinister Intents]

You're completely wrong about this, there is government and state without any intervention on the capital. I don't understand how you think this is impossible please tell me.

Figure it out yourself! I won't explain shit to you anymore :mad:

[Libertie76]

Yes in capitalism (whether 'free market' or any other kind) because the social product - which is made by the working class - is taken by capitalists on the basis that they own the products of the means of production. All class societies are societies of 'forced redisbursment' because the producing classes are expropriated by the exploiting classes.

Only, not in communism; therefore it is the only society in which redisbursment is not forced.

But yet everyday in a free market society the workers and the producers vote for which product stays on the market. Every single day the mass makes the decision of which company stays in production and which one doesn't. This does not need to have any governmental interevention in it. Its not that complicated. In a capitalist society EVERYONE is capitalist, and EVERYONE decides what product is needed and what product isn't.

[Libertie76]

Figure it out yourself! I won't explain shit to you anymore :mad:

You haven't explained anything to me at all

[Libertie76]

I keep reading this paragraph in order to construct a response and I really don't know how. The reason for that is because I don't really understand where the basis for your claim lies. Your arguing that when a decision is made that some don't agree with, this will somehow translate into upheaval on such a scale it would result in a civil war...

That seems such a preposterous leap in logic that I don't know where to begin in responding to it...Violence on this scale is not a reasonable response to disagreeing with a decision, is it?

Ultimately I don't accept that there would be a decision in a communist society that would need to be made that was so deeply profound that it would result in a fundamental split in the whole of society.

Communist society is based on everyone working as much as they can to provide everyone with what they need. Production, construction and distribution is predicated on that principle. This will invariably limit and decrease the amount of production that is actually carried out in society, freeing people up to live their lives outside of work.

If production, construction and distribution is organsied in this way it means that the work that people do is for themselves and their communities. People aren't alienated from the process of work or the process of deciding how that work is managed. Decisions that have to be made in the course of those tasks would be done purely on a pragmatic basis as a collective response to a problem facing society at large.

I cannot see, therefore, a situation that would result in a civil war...If a minority of people who were not happy with a decision felt compelled to use violence then society would respond in kind through defensive measures.



The concept of civil liberties was developed to mitigate deep divisions in a class society. It is a response to the objection of people in a class society against their oppression and alienation. "Liberties" are then created to pacify that dissent. They are simply a tool for the ruling class to maintain their control.

The need for specifically designated "civil liberties" would be redundant in a communist society, since no one is economically or politically alienated or oppressed. Participating in a political process and finding yourself at the contrary side of a democratic majority decision, is not equitable to being alienated and oppressed by a political process based on your economic or racial status.



Your argument is disingenuous. The term government is essentially a term of vagueness. Admittedly it is rather a loaded term and one I would avoid personally, but in reality the term government simply means the organisation of the administration of society.

When you use the word government, however, you do so to mean a "centralised government." Government and "central" government are not the same thing. Your attempt to make them the same thing is a neat little way for you to try and win this discussion. But is a lie.

No one objects to government (even those who say they object to the term government). What is objected to is the idea of a "central" government and your claim that a central government is required to exclusively defend society against malcontents is absolutely wrong.



Class is an economic relationship. When those relationships are destroyed through the revolutionary process, there will no loner be a class. Production, construction etc become socially necessary work, just as public protection will be, and then managed on that basis.



The day-to-day management of public safety would be the responsibility of everyone in society as we went about our daily lives. For those situations where there is violence on a scale that required a more specialised response, a militia would be called upon to respond. That militia would be made up just as any other work was made up: by volunteers, probably on a rotational basis and managed with community oversight.



The limited scope of your political imagination is the only thing that concludes an "executive branch" and "central government" is necessary to adminsiter public protection.

But of course your argument comes from the premise that human beings are inherently incapable of managing their own affairs unless constrained by institution. Again, you are wrong.



Society would hold her responsible.



Technically it is hypothetical.

Anyway, a central government is just one form of government. Being an advocate of "strong" centralism doesn't actually qualify it as the only form of government that can administer management of society. That is simply your ideological projections and bears no relation to reality.

I'm reminded of a Wilhelm Weitling quote: "In the perfect society there is no government, only administration. No laws, only obligation. No punishments, only remedies." This quote may seem trite and semantic, but actually it identifies the fundamental difference in conceptualisation and the different way of thinking for reactionaries and revolutionaries.

OK BACK TO THE THINGS I HAD DISCUSSED THAT YOU HAVE IGNORED.

The questions at hand, water plant decides it needs to build a dam in the river for society to have more energy

They send delegates to a council to propose the idea

The people who live at the river send delegates to oppose the idea

council votes and decides to do it

people who have lived there for hundreds of years strongly view it as a complete destruction of their environment and do not want the power and they believe in this so much they are willing to kill for it

They decide to kill the counsel members who voted for it to happen

HOW DO WE STOP THIS ACTION WITHOUT LAW. AND HOW DO WE HAVE LAW WITH NO GOVERNMENT please tell me before you try to ramble intellectual nothings in the middle of a conversation

[The Feral Underclass]

OK BACK TO THE THINGS I HAD DISCUSSED THAT YOU HAVE IGNORED.

The questions at hand, water plant decides it needs to build a dam in the river for society to have more energy

They send delegates to a council to propose the idea

The people who live at the river send delegates to oppose the idea

council votes and decides to do it

people who have lived there for hundreds of years strongly view it as a complete destruction of their environment and do not want the power and they believe in this so much they are willing to kill for it

They decide to kill the counsel members who voted for it to happen

HOW DO WE STOP THIS ACTION WITHOUT LAW. AND HOW DO WE HAVE LAW WITH NO GOVERNMENT please tell me before you try to ramble intellectual nothings in the middle of a conversation

So basically your question is how do you stop someone from being murdered? Aside from the fact I have already answered that question, I think it's patently absurd that someone can visualise a situation where it is impossible to stop someone from being murdered without a central government. You're an idiot.


please tell me before you try to ramble intellectual nothings in the middle of a conversation

You mean refuting your argument...

[Libertie76]

Mistress Sinistra, I think I have to disagree; all social systems involve redistribution of wealth, because social wealth is created by human labour, and therefore by some producing class (in capitalism it's the working class, obviously). But every society has involved a system of sharing the wealth create by the producers with other members of society (even in hunter-gatherer societies, though these don't necessarily have to have involved 'classes').

Children, the elderly, the injured - these don't necessarily produce any social wealth, and yet if they didn't consume social wealth, they'd die. This then must mean that all societies had (and I think will have) an element of 'disbursment of social wealth' - from the producers to the non-producers. Though, as many hunter-gatherers didn't, and the future communist society won't, have any class systems, there will be no force involved.

Yes people should volunteer to help the sick elderly, however once we force them to do it not only does government get involved in the helping but then they mess everything up. LOOK At THE V.A HOSPITALS that tells you how government health care goes.

You completely do not trust anyone in a capitalist society because you think no one will help the elderly unless they are forced to, and youre completely wrong about that. Neighborhood churches have allocated for more volunteer work towards healthcare then anything. Like I said earlier look at the rates today and compare them with the rates 60 years ago in accordance to hungry and homeless. Even look 100 years ago. It seems only when government gets involved it completely derails everything.

[Libertie76]

So basically your question is how do you stop someone from being murdered?



You mean refuting your argument...

How could we protect the decision process, there is that easy enough for you?

[The Feral Underclass]

How could we protect the decision process, there is that easy enough for you?

"The day-to-day management of public safety would be the responsibility of everyone in society as we went about our daily lives. For those situations where there is violence on a scale that required a more specialised response, a militia would be called upon to respond. That militia would be made up just as any other work was made up: by volunteers, probably on a rotational basis and managed with community oversight." (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2797866&postcount=363)

And the issue isn't that the question you're asking is not clear enough, it's that it's fundamentally stupid.

[Libertie76]

"The day-to-day management of public safety would be the responsibility of everyone in society as we went about our daily lives. For those situations where there is violence on a scale that required a more specialised response, a militia would be called upon to respond. That militia would be made up just as any other work was made up: by volunteers, probably on a rotational basis and managed with community oversight." (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2797866&postcount=363)

And the issue isn't that the question you're asking is not clear enough, it's that it's fundamentally stupid.

Who makes the decision to call the militia together? How does it get called together? if its a group of people that come in to make violence against the committees then the militia gets created to fight back is that a civil war? Theres no other protection to the comitte then a need to call a militia together? are you serious.

[The Feral Underclass]

Who makes the decision to call the militia together? How does it get called together? if its a group of people that come in to make violence against then committees then the militia gets created to fight back is that a civil war?

The purpose of your neurosis is not to find a solution, it is to create problems. No reasonable intellect requires detailed minutiae to understand basic social functioning unless they are purposefully being obtuse.

I mean, your questions are just nonsense. Who makes a decision to call up a militia? How does it get called? What the fuck are you talking about?! I thought we were talking about an individual being murdered, weren't we? Who gives a fuck who makes the decision or how it's called up? The point is that the militia will exist and there will be mechanisms in place to ensure people are protected. The minute details of how people administer those processes across the whole planet can't possibly be decided right now and there is absolutely no reason for them to be either.

This debate is nothing but an exercise in you asking as many mundane questions as you can possibly ask until someone is unable to answer, so that you can then claim victory over communism as being an ill-thought out administrative system. You think if you ask enough ridiculous questions that at some point you will be able to win the argument, fait accompli. Of course you don't seem to appreciate that the whole basis for your questions is founded on complete and utter bullshit.


Theres no other protection to the comitte then a need to call a militia together? are you serious.

No more is required.

[Libertie76]

The purpose of your neurosis is not to find a solution, it is to create problems. No reasonable intellect requires detailed minutiae to understand basic social functioning unless they are purposefully being obtuse.

I mean, your questions are just nonsense. Who makes a decision to call up a militia? How does it get called? What the fuck are you talking about?! I thought we were talking about an individual being murdered, weren't we? Who gives a fuck who makes the decision or how it's called up? The point is that the militia will exist and there will be mechanisms in place to ensure people are protected. The minute details of how people administer those processes across the whole planet can't possibly be decided right now and there is absolutely no reason for them to be either.

This debate is nothing but an exercise in you asking as many mundane questions as you can possibly ask until someone is unable to answer, so that you can then claim victory over communism as being an ill-thought out administrative system. You think if you ask enough ridiculous questions that at some point you will be able to win the argument, fait accompli. Of course you don't seem to appreciate that the whole basis for your questions is founded on complete and utter bullshit.



No more is required.

I think you fundamentally cant answer the question because your ingenious mind realizes that the only way for this to happen is a government. Its not a stupid question its a very reasonable question. These cant be answered right now, means we don't know the answer.

You're character insults towards me only proves my claim that you don't know the answer to the actual faze of carrying out the theories of communism with actual organization, and yet I am supposed to believe in this so blindly that I need to be willing to grab a gun and have a revolution to make this happen.

These questions need to be answered before revolution, or society will rebuild itself in a non dream utopian Marxist state and the entire revolution was for absolutely nothing. Hence, the USSR

[Lord Testicles]

I think you fundamentally cant answer the question because your ingenious mind realizes that the only way for this to happen is a government. Its not a stupid question its a very reasonable question. These cant be answered right now, means we don't know the answer.

You're character insults towards me only proves my claim that you don't know the answer to the actual faze of carrying out the theories of communism with actual organization, and yet I am supposed to believe in this so blindly that I need to be willing to grab a gun and have a revolution to make this happen.

These questions need to be answered before revolution, or society will rebuild itself in a non dream utopian Marxist state and the entire revolution was for absolutely nothing. Hence, the USSR

The stupid! It burns! It burns!

wvVPdyYeaQU

[The Feral Underclass]

I think you fundamentally cant answer the question because your ingenious mind realizes that the only way for this to happen is a government. Its not a stupid question its a very reasonable question. These cant be answered right now, means we don't know the answer.

Of course you think that. But here we come back to the issue of government. If you had actually read my long post, you would have read that I don't object to the principle of government. The word government is a vague term used to describe the administration of society. I am happy for government to exist. It is how that government is formed that's the issue.


You're character insults towards me only proves my claim that you don't know the answer to the actual faze of carrying out the theories of communism with actual organization, and yet I am supposed to believe in this so blindly that I need to be willing to grab a gun and have a revolution to make this happen.

No one is asking you to believe anything or be willing to do anything. Revolution isn't dependent on your support. It will happen with or without you.

And I'm sorry to say, my insults towards you are absolutely appropriate. A person whose criteria for social liberation is judged based on the minutiae of administrative procedures is a highly dubious and suspect individual.

You operate within a mindset that can only conceptualise organisation based on authoritarian, centralised, minority administration. As a communist militant I reject that. It's not my role to propose how people will organise their communities in the future. It is not my role as a communist militant to have planned out every detail of a future society and the processes for administration that will be involved. That role is for the communities to decide when it is happening -- it's called direct democracy and I don't presume to position myself as having any right to make determinations on other people's life, especially before a revolution has even happened.

That's the fundamental difference here. You envision political administration as some kind of specialised process that can only be carried out by specialists, privileged in the art of governance. I do not.


These questions need to be answered before revolution, or society will rebuild itself in a non dream utopian Marxist state and the entire revolution was for absolutely nothing. Hence, the USSR

No they absolutely do not. As Bakunin said: "Anyone who makes plans for after the revolution is a reactionary." What Bakunin means by that is anyone who presumes they are entitled to know how our future society will look is attempting to circumvent proletarian liberation. Plans for after the revolution can only be made in the moment and by society at large.

The purpose of our revolution is not to be bogged down by minutiae, it is to liberate ourselves from capitalism.

[Libertie76]

Of course you think that. But here we come back to the issue of government. If you had actually read my long post, you would have read that I don't object to the principle of government. The word government is a vague term used to describe the administration of society. I am happy for government to exist. It is how that government is formed that's the issue.



No one is asking you to believe anything or be willing to do anything. Revolution isn't dependent on your support. It will happen with or without you.

And I'm sorry to say, my insults towards you are absolutely appropriate. A person whose criteria for social liberation is judged based on the minutiae of administrative procedures is a highly dubious and suspect individual.

You operate within a mindset that can only conceptualise organisation based on authoritarian, centralised, minority administration. As a communist militant I reject that. It's not my role to propose how people will organise their communities in the future. It is not my role as a communist militant to have planned out every detail of a future society and the processes for administration that will be involved. That role is for the communities to decide when it is happening -- it's called direct democracy and I don't presume to position myself as having any right to make determinations before a revolution has even happened.

That's the fundamental difference here. You envision political administration as some kind of specialised process that can only be carried out by specialists, privileged in the art of governance. I do not.



No they absolutely do not. As Bakunin said: "Anyone who makes plans for after the revolution is a reactionary." What Bakunin means by that is anyone who presumes they are entitled to know how our future society will look is attempting to circumvent proletarian liberation. Plans for after the revolution can only be made in the moment and by society at large.

The purpose of our revolution is not to be bogged down by minutiae, it is to liberate ourselves from capitalism.


I think that the actual organization of communism after the revolution is very vital, just because you don't shows your complete ineptitude on the subject.

You aren't opposed to government but you are opposed to class separation correct?

So if there is government, then that means the roles of people are separated, there is either the producers or the governors. By definition of class as marx called it is a "difference in means to production", so the government having no involvement in production, considering your original message "I am happy for government to exist. It is how that government is formed that's the issue." leads to the direct understanding that there is no inherent role in protection of governing officials.

So if that is the case, then there are classes in your post capitalist communist state, correct?

Also, the dictation of what the government can and cant do would definitely need to be assured before the revolution because billions of people can be blindsided by a complete power grab of power hungry officials, posing as protectors of communism. If the government is instilled to protect the process of socialism, its own functions and powers need to be addressed, and this is something you as a "militant communist" should understand considering you are willing to put my children's lives on the line for this ideology.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think that the actual organization of communism after the revolution is very vital

Do you though? Vital for what?


just because you don't shows your complete ineptitude on the subject.

I've provided an ideological reason for that. My suggestion would be to address that reason directly.


So if there is government, then that means the roles of people are separated, there is either the producers or the governors.

In a communist society they are one and the same.


By definition of class as marx called it is a "difference in means to production", so the government having no involvement in production, considering your original message "I am happy for government to exist. It is how that government is formed that's the issue." leads to the direct understanding that there is no inherent role in protection of governing officials.

Government isn't a separate entity from the people. The people are the government. And there's no such thing as "governing officials" in a communist society.


So if that is the case, then there are classes in your post capitalist communist state, correct?

It isn't the case though, as I and others have painstakingly attempted to explain to you.


Also, the dictation of what the government can and cant do would definitely need to be assured before the revolution because billions of people can be blindsided by a complete power grab of power hungry officials, posing as protectors of communism. If the government is instilled to protect the process of socialism, its own functions and powers need to be addressed, and this is something you as a "militant communist" should understand considering you are willing to put my children's lives on the line for this ideology.

There would be no government outside the people. The administration of society would be done by those in society on a day-to-day basis. The same people who are also the people that are producers of society.

[Libertie76]

do you though? Vital for what?



I've provided an ideological reason for that. My suggestion would be to address that reason directly.



In a communist society they are one and the same.



Government isn't a separate entity from the people. The people are the government. And there's no such thing as "governing officials" in a communist society.



It isn't the case though, as i and others have painstakingly attempted to explain to you.



There would be no government outside the people. The administration of society would be done by those in society on a day-to-day basis. The same people who are also the people that producers of society.

so how does the militia get called?

[Sinister Intents]

so how does the militia get called?

You'd volunteer, it'd be freedom of association and you could cone and go as your please. I feel this may be too confusing for you though

[The Feral Underclass]

so how does the militia get called?

By telephone.

[Libertie76]

By telephone.

Who decides when its necessary?

[The Feral Underclass]

Who decides when its necessary?

What process do you think is required to make the decision to protect someone from murder?

[Libertie76]

You'd volunteer, it'd be freedom of association and you could cone and go as your please. I feel this may be too confusing for you though

Ok so a group of people think that they need to dismantle part of the system because they feel they aren't being treated fairly due to the forced policy of a committee, they go in and kill everyone in the committee and decide that the only way for them to actually now have any aspect of production is to seize control of community after community and gain momentum in order to do so, the only thing we rely on is a volunteer militia with no leadership. Ok sounds like a good plan for organization.

[Sinister Intents]

Who decides when its necessary?

The collective, when Individuals decide its necessary

[Libertie76]

What process do you think is required to decide for some people to stop someone from being murdered?

A person given the job, or the authority to make the call, and then laws to protect citizens to make sure he doesn't abuse that law.

Such as ATTORNEY GENERAL in the united states

[The Feral Underclass]

A person given the job, or the authority to make the call, and then laws to protect citizens to make sure he doesn't abuse that law.

Such as ATTORNEY GENERAL in the united states

The attorney general doesn't make decisions to call up a militia to stop someone from getting murdered.

But sure, that's certainly one way, but it wouldn't work under communism. Try again.

[Sinister Intents]

Ok so a group of people think that they need to dismantle part of the system because they feel they aren't being treated fairly due to the forced policy of a committee, they go in and kill everyone in the committee and decide that the only way for them to actually now have any aspect of production is to seize control of community after community and gain momentum in order to do so, the only thing we rely on is a volunteer militia with no leadership. Ok sounds like a good plan for organization.

I doubt freed individuals in a communist society would be too thrilled with counterrevolutionary advances. I'd certainly fight till my death to keep a bunch of fuck ups from trying to take control, they'd be crushed by the collectivised society and they'd lead themselves

[The Feral Underclass]

Libertie76 is never going to be convinced of anything because he doesn't want to be. Moreover, he can't conceptualise organisation if it is not institutionalised and centralised. There's no point in trying to have this discussion with him if he starts from the premise that there is absolutely no other kind of organisation that competently exists if it is not institutionised and centralised.

[Sinister Intents]

Then let's talk proletarian dictatorship :mad: you'll be in the Gulag Libertie76

[Libertie76]

The attorney general doesn't make decisions to call up a militia to stop someone from getting murdered.

But sure, that's certainly one way, but it wouldn't work under communism. Try again.
Like I said, the only possible answer is a government responsible for the protection of the policies created by the committees.

Which is why I am asking you, because the minute you create a government with the process of communism it needs to be centralized because its the direct embodiment of the means of production, it would need to take over all forms of production for the people.

It would need to issue laws and policies in accordance to the production to re distribute back to the mass, and then it would need to enforce a group of people designated as the sole protectors, because if it only relied on volunteer and not duty it would be easily overran.


The United States Attorney General (A.G.) is the head of the United States Department of Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice) per 28 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_28_of_the_United_States_Code) § 503 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/503.html), concerned with legal affairs and is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_the_United_States).

Wow in charge of all law enforcement in the united states....

[Libertie76]

I doubt freed individuals in a communist society would be too thrilled with counterrevolutionary advances. I'd certainly fight till my death to keep a bunch of fuck ups from trying to take control, they'd be crushed by the collectivised society and they'd lead themselves

What if their fighting to stop forced policy of cutting down trees in a region that is crucial to the environment?

What if they're upset because a committee ruled that they will mass produce a type of medicine that is not working and is killing your parents and your neighbors parents?

What if you disagree with something the committee rules and you feel like you need to fight with your life to stop the policy because there is no other legal way about it?

[Libertie76]

Libertie76 is never going to be convinced of anything because he doesn't want to be. Moreover, he can't conceptualise organisation if it is not institutionalised and centralised. There's no point in trying to have this discussion with him if he starts from the premise that there is absolutely no other kind of organisation that competently exists if it is not institutionised and centralised.

Then who will be incharge of the decision of when its necessary for the militia to be rounded? If you say the people then you have to prepare for the fact that every time this happens its a civil war

[Libertie76]

Then let's talk proletarian dictatorship :mad: you'll be in the Gulag Libertie76

I think you secretly want to have sex with me in the gulag

[The Feral Underclass]

Then who will be incharge of the decision of when its necessary for the militia to be rounded?

What do you think I can say to you that is different to what I have already said several times?


If you say the people then you have to prepare for the fact that every time this happens its a civil war

No I don't.

[Sinister Intents]

I think you secretly want to have sex with me in the gulag

What the honest fuck?

I'm sorry I'm attracted to women. You'd probably be shot by firing squad

[Libertie76]

No I don't.

HAHA ok.

[Libertie76]

What do you think I can say to you that is different to what I have already said several times?



No I don't.

OO ok what you have to say to me about who is in charge of creating the militia is geee idk I guess well just kinda wing it

[Libertie76]

What the honest fuck?

I'm sorry I'm attracted to women. You'd probably be shot by firing squad

That's ok Im attracted to women also! See we do have something in common.

Well atleast ill die for what I actually believe in rather then this failed concept of a utopian state that can not work without seriously contradicting itself

[The Feral Underclass]

OO ok what you have to say to me about who is in charge of creating the militia is geee idk I guess well just kinda wing it

I've already answered the question several times. I don't understand what more you want me to say?


Well atleast ill die for what I actually believe in rather then this failed concept of a utopian state that can not work without seriously contradicting itself

Those contradictions only exist in your mind. Your arguments have been addressed several times.

[Sinister Intents]

What if their fighting to stop forced policy of cutting down trees in a region that is crucial to the environment?

What if they're upset because a committee ruled that they will mass produce a type of medicine that is not working and is killing your parents and your neighbors parents?

What if you disagree with something the committee rules and you feel like you need to fight with your life to stop the policy because there is no other legal way about it?

WHAT IF WHAT IF WHAT IF WHAT IF WHAT IF WHAT IF YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP! Sound good?

All trees are important for their ecological function, tree farms would be set up to grow trees that would be adequate for fire wood and wood for other reasons. Trees will be planted and cut down as necessary for the whole of society and no one will be able to forcibly do that and it'd piss off a huge number of people and they'd probably put an end to it.

NOTHING LIKE THAT WILL BE PURPOSEFULLY DONE TO HARM PEOPLE, things will be done to ensure that all medicines are safe for animal and human consumption.

NOT EVERYONE IS GOING TO AGREE ON EVERYTHING. I'm sure I'd disagree with people on community policies, but if I and many others are not allowed to have a say in community policies, that the people themselves aren't the government then it isn't socialism and it'd be necessary to revolt against the minority rule.


That's ok Im attracted to women also! See we do have something in common.

Well atleast ill die for what I actually believe in rather then this failed concept of a utopian state that can not work without seriously contradicting itself

So are you attracted to me? I'm a women.

Edit: You've made 179 posts of stupid.

[Libertie76]

I've already answered the question several times. I don't understand what more you want me to say?



Those contradictions only exist in your mind. Your arguments have been addressed several times.

"Who makes a decision to call up a militia? How does it get called? What the fuck are you talking about?! I thought we were talking about an individual being murdered, weren't we? Who gives a fuck who makes the decision or how it's called up? The point is that the militia will exist and there will be mechanisms in place to ensure people are protected. The minute details of how people administer those processes across the whole planet can't possibly be decided right now and there is absolutely no reason for them to be either."

Sounds like a "well just wing it" to me

[Libertie76]

WHAT IF WHAT IF WHAT IF WHAT IF WHAT IF WHAT IF YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP! Sound good?

All trees are important for their ecological function, tree farms would be set up to grow trees that would be adequate for fire wood and wood for other reasons. Trees will be planted and cut down as necessary for the whole of society and no one will be able to forcibly do that and it'd piss off a huge number of people and they'd probably put an end to it.

NOTHING LIKE THAT WILL BE PURPOSEFULLY DONE TO HARM PEOPLE, things will be done to ensure that all medicines are safe for animal and human consumption.

NOT EVERYONE IS GOING TO AGREE ON EVERYTHING. I'm sure I'd disagree with people on community policies, but if I and many others are not allowed to have a say in community policies, that the people themselves aren't the government then it isn't socialism and it'd be necessary to revolt against the minority rule.



So are you attracted to me? I'm a women.

The policies of the committees creation. I was under the interpretation that the people who utlimatly decide what needs to be produced and when comes from a committee of different delegets. If the committee makes a mistake and a big group of people start shutting down the committee by killing them then what would prevent that from spreading, especially if a big group of people agreed with them, and especially since the committee has no subjective authority over the people shutting down the committee.

That's the question, how does this get dealt with unless it turns into a civil war between citizens. And you're ok by this

I am attracted to your enthusiasm, alas I am not attracted to your language it kind of hurts my feelings.

[The Feral Underclass]

"Who makes a decision to call up a militia? How does it get called? What the fuck are you talking about?! I thought we were talking about an individual being murdered, weren't we? Who gives a fuck who makes the decision or how it's called up? The point is that the militia will exist and there will be mechanisms in place to ensure people are protected. The minute details of how people administer those processes across the whole planet can't possibly be decided right now and there is absolutely no reason for them to be either."

Sounds like a "well just wing it" to me

The role of communist militants is not to make pre-defined plans for how a future society is administered. Our role is to organise against capitalism. Establishing a communist society is the role of "the people." It is not the role of a group of communists sat on an internet message board.

Now, you see that as a sign of weakness, but you see it that way because you are an authoritarian centralist who has absolutely no faith in the abilities of "the people" to manage their affairs competently. Well that's not my problem, that's your problem.

Communism is a social and economic relationship. It is not a pre-planned conceptualisation of every single administrative procedure that will come. The world will likely have different procedures and methods. It is impossible to determine what they will be.

Nevertheless, centralisation of political administration will not be necessary, nor will it be desirable. The management of communities and of cities will be done through direct democratic processes and people will abide by those processes in the same way that the police force in a bourgeois society abide by the processes laid down by it.

[Lord Testicles]

"Who makes a decision to call up a militia? How does it get called? What the fuck are you talking about?! I thought we were talking about an individual being murdered, weren't we? Who gives a fuck who makes the decision or how it's called up? The point is that the militia will exist and there will be mechanisms in place to ensure people are protected. The minute details of how people administer those processes across the whole planet can't possibly be decided right now and there is absolutely no reason for them to be either."

Sounds like a "well just wing it" to me

When Libertie76 sees someone being murdered the first thing he does is ask those around him:

"Who's job is it to contact the relevant authorities to stop this from happening?"

and that's why he's an idiot.

[Libertie76]

The role of communist militants is not to make pre-defined plans for how a future society is administered. Our role is to organise against capitalism. Establishing a communist society is the role of "the people." It is not the role of a group of communists sat on an internet message board.

Now, you see that as a sign of weakness, but you see it that way because you are an authoritarian centralist who has absolutely no faith in the abilities of "the people" to manage their affairs competently. Well that's not my problem, that's your problem.

Communism is a social and economic relationship. It is not a pre-planned conceptualisation of every single administrative procedure that will come. The world will likely have different procedures and methods. It is impossible to determine what they will be.

Nevertheless, centralisation of political administration will not be necessary, nor will it be desirable. The management of communities and of cities will be done through direct democratic processes and people will abide by those processes in the same way that the police force in a bourgeois society abide by the processes laid down by it.

So, your suggesting that your fighting for communism but you don't know how communism will be created your just fighting but you don't necessarily understand what your fighting for besides you know capitalism is the enemy. And yet your actually trying to tell me that I am intellectually inferior, or trying to make that assumption with your insults to my obvious questions anyone interested in the revolution would ask

[Libertie76]

When Libertie76 sees someone being murdered the first thing he does is ask those around him:

"Who's job is it to contact the relevant authorities to stop this from happening?"

and that's why he's an idiot.

When Skinz replies he says nothing of value besides trying to insult my character because he doesn't know what to say

And that's why he's a communist.

[Lord Testicles]

And yet your actually trying to tell me that I am intellectually inferior, or trying to make that assumption with your insults to my obvious questions anyone interested in the revolution would ask

You are an idiot, that much is evidently true. Don't try and deny it because there's 21 pages of text attesting to your inability to understand simple concepts.


When Skinz replies he says nothing of value besides trying to insult my character because he doesn't know what to say

And that's why he's a communist.

What's the point of writing anything of value to you when you point blank refuse to understand any of it? Even if I did write something of value you would simply fail to understand it as you have with everyone else who has taken the time to write meaningful replies to your moronic statements.

Instead I prefer to just simply call you what you are: An idiot.

Anyone with the patience to read this thread over isn't going to think:

"wow! that guy ran circles around those communists"

They're going to think:

"wow! That guy has trouble understanding the most basic of statements. He has a really bad reading comprehension problem."

[Libertie76]

You are an idiot, that much is evidently true. Don't try and deny it because there's 21 pages of text attesting to your inability to understand simple concepts.

Ok simple concept of communism, How does someone obtain a piano. GO

[Lord Testicles]

Ok simple concept of communism, How does someone obtain a piano. GO

You ask for one. Next.

[Sinister Intents]

The policies of the committees creation. I was under the interpretation that the people who utlimatly decide what needs to be produced and when comes from a committee of different delegets. If the committee makes a mistake and a big group of people start shutting down the committee by killing them then what would prevent that from spreading, especially if a big group of people agreed with them, and especially since the committee has no subjective authority over the people shutting down the committee

This doesn't sound like a realistic situation to be completely honest. It's assuming there would exist a minority exerting it's authority rather than the collective authority of all, every individual would have a say in the community, all individuals would thusly make up the government, it'd be the epitome of government of the people. The people would prevent counterrevolutionary efforts and the situations that arise to create those things would no longer exist post capitalism. Free contracts would be created and the collective's rules would be enforced by the people, people would be able to use force to defend against counterrevolutionary effort, and of course there would be people helping direct the efforts of large groups of people, they would be a guiding authority, not a coercive authority that punishes and forces.


That's the question, how does this get dealt with unless it turns into a civil war between citizens. And you're ok by this

I doubt a civil war would erupt from the petty squabbles between individuals that disagree or individuals. People will fight and bicker and hurt each other and there is no way around people being rude to each other or being malicious to one another. The goal of communism/anarchy is to create a society where individuals can be themselves and determine their own schedules and not have to be forced or coerced by others and constructed situations designed to keep them oppressed and suppressed. Communism would be an end to the horrors created within capitalist society.


I am attracted to your enthusiasm, alas I am not attracted to your language it kind of hurts my feelings.

Alright. Well sorry for hurting you. I'm sure you can understand my frustration that arose when you made your comment of secretly wanting to have sex with you. That's a bit fucked up IMO. Is that because I'm a girl you said that? Or would you have said it to a man as well? Would you have called me a ***** had I been meaner? Which I could be meaner but won't most likely.

[Libertie76]

You ask for one. Next.

And theres just an endless surplus of pianos out of no where and people can just take as many as they want OK! sounds like an amazing utopia, where do I sign up

[Sinister Intents]

You ask for one. Next.

Could I help build my own custom piano? :rolleyes:

[Sinister Intents]

And theres just an endless surplus of pianos out of no where and people can just take as many as they want OK! sounds like an amazing utopia, where do I sign up

People enjoy music, and thus musical instruments will be created because there will be a demand and this demand will be supplied. Whether by handcrafting the piano, or producing it in a factory, products will be produced to meet people's demands. People enjoy being constructive and we're naturally cooperative animals, people will do things out of mutual aid to assist there fellow individual. If I contact someone seeking a piano, I'm sure I can find one used or brand new. Communism doesn't mean an end to supply and demand or the end of production of things that people want.

[Lord Testicles]

And theres just an endless surplus of pianos out of no where and people can just take as many as they want OK! sounds like an amazing utopia, where do I sign up

As in the current system, all 7 billion people want pianos and they want them last week.

Looks like communism is fucked people, decades worth of theory down the drain with this simplistic question. Back to the drawing board.

[The Feral Underclass]

So, your suggesting that your fighting for communism but you don't know how communism will be created your just fighting but you don't necessarily understand what your fighting for besides you know capitalism is the enemy.

What I am fighting for is the economic and political supremacy of the working class and the destruction of the proletarian social relationship. I am not fighting for some administrative procedure. They're not important. The time when they are important is when the working class are implementing the process of self-governance and it will be at that point we begin to discuss these issues.


And yet your actually trying to tell me that I am intellectually inferior, or trying to make that assumption with your insults to my obvious questions...

You are intellectually inferior, but that's neither here nor there.

You are attempting to define a political belief system based on its most primitive, procedural minutiae. Why you are doing that is still not clear to me. But whatever the reason, it is not legitimate.


anyone interested in the revolution would ask

I have been an active member of the revolutionary left for almost 20 years. Of all my experiences of organising in communities and workplaces, being on picket lines, riots, demos, campaigns and so forth, I have never come across these questions. No one asks them. Ever.

But do tell me, what is it about your experience that qualifies your statement that anyone interested in revolution would ask these questions?

[The Feral Underclass]

Ok simple concept of communism, How does someone obtain a piano. GO

People who want pianos will have to organise their production. If you want a piano then you will have to either build it yourself or find someone or a group of people to help you.

[Libertie76]

This doesn't sound like a realistic situation to be completely honest. It's assuming there would exist a minority exerting it's authority rather than the collective authority of all, every individual would have a say in the community, all individuals would thusly make up the government, it'd be the epitome of government of the people. The people would prevent counterrevolutionary efforts and the situations that arise to create those things would no longer exist post capitalism. Free contracts would be created and the collective's rules would be enforced by the people, people would be able to use force to defend against counterrevolutionary effort, and of course there would be people helping direct the efforts of large groups of people, they would be a guiding authority, not a coercive authority that punishes and forces.



I doubt a civil war would erupt from the petty squabbles between individuals that disagree or individuals. People will fight and bicker and hurt each other and there is no way around people being rude to each other or being malicious to one another. The goal of communism/anarchy is to create a society where individuals can be themselves and determine their own schedules and not have to be forced or coerced by others and constructed situations designed to keep them oppressed and suppressed. Communism would be an end to the horrors created within capitalist society.



Alright. Well sorry for hurting you. I'm sure you can understand my frustration that arose when you made your comment of secretly wanting to have sex with you. That's a bit fucked up IMO. Is that because I'm a girl you said that? Or would you have said it to a man as well? Would you have called me a ***** had I been meaner? Which I could be meaner but won't most likely.

The failure in this that I see, is that people aren't so susceptible to ideas that you consider minor issues. If a group of people are living in a region and the state comes and builds construction companies in their region they have inhabited for hundreds of years they wont consider it petty

As for your free contracts theory, that wouldn't even mean anything because theres no subjective authority in the contract. Also, people will ban together to fight the counter revolutionaries, but what about people that might be upset on other issues. These are issues that need to be addressed, and im telling you all of these issues have happened in America since its inception, of only a few hundred years and the reason its maintained is because of a government and laws, not simply due to the militia

Its ok, I forgive women much easier then men, and no I would not of said that if you are a man. And, PS the only women I call *****es are Hillary Clinton, nancy Pelosi, and Barbara boxer.

[Libertie76]

As in the current system, all 7 billion people want pianos and they want them last week.

Looks like communism is fucked people, decades worth of theory down the drain with this simplistic question. Back to the drawing board.

HAHAHA how funny, because I never even said all 7 billion people, but if all 7 billion people want pianos at once will cause a giant major piano market which would actually help stabilize an economy of capitalism

However, it is very inpractical to even build pianos in communism because youre using recourses for a want instead of a need. And if there is a surplus of pianos, that would suggest a shortage of something else maybe more important like vitamins. Making guess what necessary, GOVERNMENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE ECONOMY TO MAKE SURE THIS DOESNT HAPPEN

[The Feral Underclass]

This guy's a fucking troll.

No one can be this fucking stupid.

I'm done with this guy.

[Libertie76]

People who want pianos will have to organise their production. If you want a piano then you will have to either build it yourself or find someone or a group of people to help you.

So then with that concept, in order to create music or express yourself musically you need to become a master of instrumental creation? That would take a long time, and it would mean you're using resources for something that wont be beneficial to society right?

[Lord Testicles]

HAHAHA how funny, because I never even said all 7 billion people, but if all 7 billion people want pianos at once will cause a giant major piano market which would actually help stabilize an economy of capitalism

So why is it important that there is an inexhaustible supply you fuck-wit?


However, it is very inpractical to even build pianos in communism because youre using recourses for a want instead of a need. And if there is a surplus of pianos, that would suggest a shortage of something else maybe more important like vitamins. Making guess what necessary, GOVERNMENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE ECONOMY TO MAKE SURE THIS DOESNT HAPPEN

Firstly, you can't even spell impractical.

Secondly, don't build too many pianos or you'll use up all the vitamins.

:laugh:

[Libertie76]

So why is it important that there is an inexhaustible supply you fuck-wit?



Firstly, you can't even spell impractical.

Secondly, don't build too many pianos or you'll use up all the vitamins.

:laugh:


How does society know when to start and when to stop without market or money or governmental influence over it?

Its important because you suggested you just go and grab one you fuck-wit

[motion denied]

People could use public pianos. There are some pianos in tube stations in my State's capital. Pianos could be put in parks, squares etc. Pal, your problem is not even a real problem.

Feeling trolled but who cares, I'm bored anyway.

[Lord Testicles]

Its important because you suggested you just go and grab one you fuck-wit

So, before you can have something there needs to be an inexhaustible supply of it?


How does society know when to start and when to stop without market or money or governmental influence over it?

A mixture of worshipping Cthulhu and the use of dowsing rods. We should be fine just as long as we remember not to build too many pianos or we'll use up all the vitamins. :lol:

[Libertie76]

People could use public pianos. There are some pianos in tube stations in my State's capital. Pianos could be put in parks, squares etc. Pal, your problem is not even a real problem.

Feeling trolled but who cares, I'm bored anyway.

Ok good answer for that question, however who decides where the piano goes and doesn't go since everywhere is public, I just decided im going to put a piano inside your house and play it all night long because its public property correct? But I'm not breaking any laws in doing this because there's no laws. And this magical piano is just going to be created out of thin air because theres no need for a piano in a communist society since production is based on need not want. Unless I become a piano builder, but then o wait the wood and the supplies I need to build the piano I cant have because those are designated for need correct?

I like the answer question, try to dodge response approach its very ineffective

[Libertie76]

So, before you can have something there needs to be an inexhaustible supply of it?



A mixture of worshipping Cthulhu and the use of dowsing rods. We should be fine just as long as we remember not to build too many pianos or we'll use up all the vitamins. :lol:

Ok so well just kinda wing it with no influence or oversite in it what so ever that sounds like an ingenious solution to economics

According to you considering you said you just ask for one, and let me try to understand this part, WHO DO U ASK

[Sinister Intents]

The failure in this that I see, is that people aren't so susceptible to ideas that you consider minor issues. If a group of people are living in a region and the state comes and builds construction companies in their region they have inhabited for hundreds of years they wont consider it petty

The state wouldn't exist in full communism, the proletarian state in it's intended use wouldn't force people out of an area just so construction can be started in a given area, lest there is the potential people living in that area are at severe risk for disease or they're at threat from counterrevolutionary forces. People wouldn't be forced to disperse because in that case it wouldn't be the function of the state because the state's function would be to lead the proletariat in transition to communism.


As for your free contracts theory, that wouldn't even mean anything because theres no subjective authority in the contract. Also, people will ban together to fight the counter revolutionaries, but what about people that might be upset on other issues. These are issues that need to be addressed, and im telling you all of these issues have happened in America since its inception, of only a few hundred years and the reason its maintained is because of a government and laws, not simply due to the militia

The free contracts have existed in the past, as for example, I don't remember my references. People will organize together and fight counterrevolution, people won't just sit there and do nothing. Of course the USA would remain an example of many things, but those problems also occurred because of the existence of the state and it's rule over the people. If a state exists in transition to communism it will serve as an organ to defend the people within it's borders, but the transitional state is fraught with it's own potential problems, but there are work arounds for everything, including the DotP. I'm more interested in discussing now what is below than discussing theory which people like TFU and Blake are more eloquent in.


Its ok, I forgive women much easier then men, and no I would not of said that if you are a man. And, PS the only women I call *****es are Hillary Clinton, nancy Pelosi, and Barbara boxer.

Alright, why is that? Why do you forgive women easier than men? Can men not be called "*****es"? What constitutes a ***** and why is it okay to call female politicians "*****es"?

[Lord Testicles]

Ok so well just kinda wing it with no influence or oversite in it what so ever that sounds like an ingenious solution to economics

oversite: A layer of concrete used to seal the earth under the ground floor of a house.

:lol:

Who's stupid? Who's stupid? That's right! You are!



According to you considering you said you just ask for one, and let me try to understand this part, WHO DO U ASK

Someone with a\ or the ability to make a piano.

Also, it's spelt "you" not "u", kindly stop wasting perfectly good oxygen.

[Libertie76]

The state wouldn't exist in full communism, the proletarian state in it's intended use wouldn't force people out of an area just so construction can be started in a given area, lest there is the potential people living in that area are at severe risk for disease or they're at threat from counterrevolutionary forces. People wouldn't be forced to disperse because in that case it wouldn't be the function of the state because the state's function would be to lead the proletariat in transition to communism.



The free contracts have existed in the past, as for example, I don't remember my references. People will organize together and fight counterrevolution, people won't just sit there and do nothing. Of course the USA would remain an example of many things, but those problems also occurred because of the existence of the state and it's rule over the people. If a state exists in transition to communism it will serve as an organ to defend the people within it's borders, but the transitional state is fraught with it's own potential problems, but there are work arounds for everything, including the DotP. I'm more interested in discussing now what is below than discussing theory which people like TFU and Blake are more eloquent in.



Alright, why is that? Why do you forgive women easier than men? Can men not be called "*****es"? What constitutes a ***** and why is it okay to call female politicians "*****es"?

Im sorry, by state I mean decision made by a committee to build a construction site on a place people might decide to be sacred or whatever reason have an identity towards the land in question

Because women are definitely more beautiful and its hard for me to stay mad at them, yes men can be *****es, but I would never tell a man that he wants to fuck me, A ***** is Hillary Clinton and these other ones because they are power hungry politicians suspending civil liberty

[Libertie76]

oversite: A layer of concrete used to seal the earth under the ground floor of a house.

:lol:

Who's stupid? Who's stupid? That's right! You are!



Someone with a\ or the ability to make a piano.

Also, it's spelt "you" not "u", kindly stop wasting perfectly good oxygen.

You cant answer the question can you HAHAHA

[The Feral Underclass]

Can we trash this thread and ban this guy?

[Libertie76]

Can we trash this thread and ban this guy?

Why don't you just ignore it?

[Sinister Intents]

Im sorry, by state I mean decision made by a committee to build a construction site on a place people might decide to be sacred or whatever reason have an identity towards the land in question

Because women are definitely more beautiful and its hard for me to stay mad at them, yes men can be *****es, but I would never tell a man that he wants to fuck me, A ***** is Hillary Clinton and these other ones because they are power hungry politicians suspending civil liberty

I don't think the land in my area can be further developed considering a major highway already runs through it and the nearby small towns and cities would be a lot better locations for improvement whether by anarchist federation, by proletarian state, capitalist nation, and so on.

Now heres the more interesting discussion:

So you'd be kinder to women who are more beautiful? That seems a bit fucked to me, why not treat everyone equally rather than giving specific precedent to one gender? Women are oppressed in capitalist society and this oppression is created and maintained by our culture we live under and the state controlled media, education systems, and so on do their part to ensure that the hegemonic order keeps women oppressed by the patriarchy. Men are often favored more than women. They get paid more, they get given more power in groups, they get to express themselves as individuals more, while women are treated like sex objects, things to protect, weak, insecure, slutty, "*****y". ***** is a pejorative insult which I do not use and have been called before, I wouldn't even call female politicians that. It's language like that that perpetuates and maintains the patriarchy and it's culture of rape.

[Lord Testicles]

You cant answer the question can you HAHAHA

Oh no, you've got me. :rolleyes: (It definitely has nothing to do with you not asking a question, but I wouldn't expect a moron like you to notice a little thing like that.)


Can we trash this thread and ban this guy?

I think we should sticky this thread and find a way to restrict this guy to just this thread, then when revelft gets "too much" we can come in here call him an idiot and have a good chuckle.

[motion denied]

Ok good answer for that question, however who decides where the piano goes and doesn't go

The absence of a State doesn't mean that people would stop to get together and decide things.


since everywhere is public, I just decided im going to put a piano inside your house and play it all night long because its public property correct? But I'm not breaking any laws in doing this because there's no laws.

Because this happens all the time. Seriously, now you're just making stuff up.


And this magical piano is just going to be created out of thin air because theres no need for a piano in a communist society since production is based on need not want. Unless I become a piano builder, but then o wait the wood and the supplies I need to build the piano I cant have because those are designated for need correct?


...

Why wouldn't a piano be considered a need remains a mystery to me. Also, pianos already exist, in a great though maybe not sufficient quantity. In socialism it is unlikely that people would forget how to make those. Sigh.

[Sinister Intents]

Can we trash this thread and ban this guy?

But I'm having too much fun and I want to see if someone tries to defend their male privilege!

[Libertie76]

I don't think the land in my area can be further developed considering a major highway already runs through it and the nearby small towns and cities would be a lot better locations for improvement whether by anarchist federation, by proletarian state, capitalist nation, and so on.

Now heres the more interesting discussion:

So you'd be kinder to women who are more beautiful? That seems a bit fucked to me, why not treat everyone equally rather than giving specific precedent to one gender? Women are oppressed in capitalist society and this oppression is created and maintained by our culture we live under and the state controlled media, education systems, and so on do their part to ensure that the hegemonic order keeps women oppressed by the patriarchy. Men are often favored more than women. They get paid more, they get given more power in groups, they get to express themselves as individuals more, while women are treated like sex objects, things to protect, weak, insecure, slutty, "*****y". ***** is a pejorative insult which I do not use and have been called before, I wouldn't even call female politicians that. It's language like that that perpetuates and maintains the patriarchy and it's culture of rape.

Women are not oppressed in capitalist society because of capitalism how does capitalism create oppression of women over men

The state media actually makes it the exact opposite as well as the education systems

Men get paid more simply because more men work and more women still stay home

Youre concept of they are picked more in groups has no factual evidence to support the claim Neither does this concept of men can express themselves more

People get insulted every single day, whether its a women or a man, the fact that you suggest insulting women is oppressive to all women is limiting freedom of speech as well as creating division between the sexes

Everything you just say has absolutely no foundational proof on leading to rape

And ps I know plenty of women that look at men as sex objects, and are more forgiving to men then women because they find beauty in them

[Libertie76]

The absence of a State doesn't mean that people would stop to get together and decide things.



Because this happens all the time. Seriously, now you're just making stuff up.



...

Why wouldn't a piano be considered a need remains a mystery to me. Also, pianos already exist, in a great though maybe not sufficient quantity. In socialism it is unlikely that people would forget how to make those. Sigh.

So it would be up to the community as a whole to decide where the piano can and cant go, then would that create law?

It doesn't happen all the time because people in todays society respect peoples right to privacy and property

How is a piano a need, and who makes the decision on what a need is and what a want is in a Marxist society? The community, ok so if the community decides a piano isn't a need then your shit out of luck? What if you gather resources and to create a piano yourself, and then you waste resources, and so does your neighbor, and so does your other neighbor so on and so fourth. How do you decide if resources are actually going towards need or going towards personal want?

[The Feral Underclass]

Why don't you just ignore it?

Why don't you fuck off?

[motion denied]

You don't seem to understand what a law is. No such thing as "Marxist society". Suddenly people decide that pianos are counter revolutionary and you're out of luck. That happened because reasons.

What if, if this impossible things happen, if... You can "disprove" any and everything creating your little world where everything you want happens.

"What if Obama decides to kill all white men and everyone agrees with him, eh? Oh LOL CAPITALISM".

Last post. Sorry I edited it a bit.

[Libertie76]

What if, if this impossible things happen, if... You can "disprove" any and everything creating your little world where everything you want happens.

Last post.

I don't have everything I want at all

But I want this impossible thing to happen and that's an actual answer to these questions on economics and not a direct character insult for asking the question, im sorry every single thing that is a response is completely flawed and contradictory with everything else other people say

[Sinister Intents]

Women are not oppressed in capitalist society because of capitalism how does capitalism create oppression of women over men

Yes they are. Sexism exists whether you'd like it or not, and women are very much treated like second class citizens in the US of A! I'm a transgirl and I have to hide my gender identity and I cannot express myself the way I'd so much love to! Is it fair I'm not allowed by society at large to wear a skirt or where makeup just because of my physicalities? Is it fair that women in general get to be viewed as the baby makers, child rearers, the ones that exist for man's entertainment?


The state media actually makes it the exact opposite as well as the education systems

The state media presents sexist norms all the time, just watch any sitcom, any of the sensationalist news media and you will see the treatment women get! Pay attention to how women often get hit on just for being their and for being their gender!


Men get paid more simply because more men work and more women still stay home

Women are also stigmatized from certain labor and they get socialized from a very young age to be the child rearers and to be the servants of men in capitalist society. Men get paid more because men are preferred in our classist society. Women get stigmatized from construction work because they're considered weak when they're not, and when women do get to be a part of specific labor they get treated like objects and sexualized as well as infantilized!


Youre concept of they are picked more in groups has no factual evidence to support the claim Neither does this concept of men can express themselves more

It has plenty of evidence, my father refuses to hire women because he doesn't want them to hurt themselves. Ever hear the term "Working like a man" Men can express themselves a lot better, if a women dresses a certain way she gets branded a slut! If I dress a certain way I get branded a faggot, a homo, a tranny, a shemale, I'd also be at risk of physical violence for existing! Men get huge advantage in patriarchal society while women are pushed down.


People get insulted every single day, whether its a women or a man, the fact that you suggest insulting women is oppressive to all women is limiting freedom of speech as well as creating division between the sexes


So it's alright to call a women a female dog? It's completely okay to dehumanize her, to render her the position of an animal that can be aggressive. IT is OPPRESSIVE! Think about how you would feel if you got to be called something you hated to be called all the time and then when you fight back you get insulted with intent of putting you in your place. IT ISN"T INTOLERANT TO BE AGAINST SEXIST BULLSHIT.


Everything you just say has absolutely no foundational proof on leading to rape

You don't know what rape culture is do you? Here are some examples: http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/03/examples-of-rape-culture/



And ps I know plenty of women that look at men as sex objects, and are more forgiving to men then women because they find beauty in them

Sexism harms both men and women and the treatment of any individual as a sexual object is fucked up regardless of what you think. It doesn't matter if you're forgiving. If you said: "Hey, nice ass!" and grabbed a girls and expected her to take it as a compliment, that'd be really fucked up

[Libertie76]

You don't seem to understand what a law is. No such thing as "Marxist society". Suddenly people decide that pianos are counter revolutionary and you're out of luck. That happened because reasons.

What if, if this impossible things happen, if... You can "disprove" any and everything creating your little world where everything you want happens.

"What if Obama decides to kill all white men and everyone agrees with him, eh? Oh LOL CAPITALISM".

Last post. Sorry I edited it a bit.

So then what would stop me from putting a piano in your house?

Well then Obama would still be violating the constitution, of course depending on the nature surrounding the killing such as direct threat to the republic then it would be considered legal in the presidential powers. However, this has nothing to do with capitalism and the fact you brought race into the subject tries to imply races are separate and I don't agree with that at all. BYE BYE thanks for not proving anything and just showing that there is no form to practical economics in Marxist theory

[Libertie76]

Yes they are. Sexism exists whether you'd like it or not, and women are very much treated like second class citizens in the US of A! I'm a transgirl and I have to hide my gender identity and I cannot express myself the way I'd so much love to! Is it fair I'm not allowed by society at large to wear a skirt or where makeup just because of my physicalities? Is it fair that women in general get to be viewed as the baby makers, child rearers, the ones that exist for man's entertainment?



The state media presents sexist norms all the time, just watch any sitcom, any of the sensationalist news media and you will see the treatment women get! Pay attention to how women often get hit on just for being their and for being their gender!



Women are also stigmatized from certain labor and they get socialized from a very young age to be the child rearers and to be the servants of men in capitalist society. Men get paid more because men are preferred in our classist society. Women get stigmatized from construction work because they're considered weak when they're not, and when women do get to be a part of specific labor they get treated like objects and sexualized as well as infantilized!



It has plenty of evidence, my father refuses to hire women because he doesn't want them to hurt themselves. Ever hear the term "Working like a man" Men can express themselves a lot better, if a women dresses a certain way she gets branded a slut! If I dress a certain way I get branded a faggot, a homo, a tranny, a shemale, I'd also be at risk of physical violence for existing! Men get huge advantage in patriarchal society while women are pushed down.



So it's alright to call a women a female dog? It's completely okay to dehumanize her, to render her the position of an animal that can be aggressive. IT is OPPRESSIVE! Think about how you would feel if you got to be called something you hated to be called all the time and then when you fight back you get insulted with intent of putting you in your place. IT ISN"T INTOLERANT TO BE AGAINST SEXIST BULLSHIT.



You don't know what rape culture is do you? Here are some examples: http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/03/examples-of-rape-culture/




Sexism harms both men and women and the treatment of any individual as a sexual object is fucked up regardless of what you think. It doesn't matter if you're forgiving. If you said: "Hey, nice ass!" and grabbed a girls and expected her to take it as a compliment, that'd be really fucked up

Ok sexism exists in the usa, how is this capitalisms fault please explain

you can wear whatever you want, however society has a set of normalities and people might look at you weird, and how does capitalism create this?

Women are viewed as baby makers because WOMEN CAN BEAR CHILDREN MEN CANT, how is this sexism because of capitalism?

Ok so men need to stop hitting on women, and this is going to help reproduction of humanity how? And how is this because of capitalism?

What in society shows women are mens servants? Women get stigmatized by construction work not because their women and men hate women, but because most women cant lift over 100 lbs and that is part of the job requirement, how is this sexism? My wife, who is 5'1 and 100 lbs can in no way shape or form be apart of a construction crew sorry if that is sexist

Women get branded as a slut for what they wear, that is society not capitalism wont change with economics sorry

Its only sexist if you take it as an insult to your entire sex, if someone calls me an asshole or tells me that I should get shot by a firing squad, I don't immediately think its an insult to all men everywhere. and how is this capitalisms fault

If a man grabs a girls ass he doesn't know and says nice ass, its not because of sexism in society its because the man is an asshole who has no restraint what so ever, still this is not capitalisms fault

[Chomskyan]

Ok sexism exists in the usa, how is this capitalisms fault please explain

you can wear whatever you want, however society has a set of normalities and people might look at you weird, and how does capitalism create this?

Women are viewed as baby makers because WOMEN CAN BEAR CHILDREN MEN CANT, how is this sexism because of capitalism?

Ok so men need to stop hitting on women, and this is going to help reproduction of humanity how? And how is this because of capitalism?

What in society shows women are mens servants? Women get stigmatized by construction work not because their women and men hate women, but because most women cant lift over 100 lbs and that is part of the job requirement, how is this sexism? My wife, who is 5'1 and 100 lbs can in no way shape or form be apart of a construction crew sorry if that is sexist

Women get branded as a slut for what they wear, that is society not capitalism wont change with economics sorry

Its only sexist if you take it as an insult to your entire sex, if someone calls me an asshole or tells me that I should get shot by a firing squad, I don't immediately think its an insult to all men everywhere. and how is this capitalisms fault

If a man grabs a girls ass he doesn't know and says nice ass, its not because of sexism in society its because the man is an asshole who has no restraint what so ever, still this is not capitalisms fault

Lots of it has to do with capitalism. Capitalism creates the clothing, the popular culture, the social stratification. Capitalism gives men the means of production, and therefore men wield the privilege and power in society, whether it's used against women or any minority ethnic group is irrelevant. Women are not just machines for sexual reproduction. That's perversion brought on by the capitalist mind.

Anyway, you clearly didn't read Mistress Sinistra's post.

[Creative Destruction]

why are people still engaging this clown

[Sinister Intents]

why are people still engaging this clown

Something to do

[Creative Destruction]

go murder some goats. that's more productive that this shit.

[Sinister Intents]

go murder some goats. that's more productive that this shit.

Hail Satan! <3

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I bet, on the eve of the Glorious Revolution, when a group of peasants got together to discuss the proposed toppling of King James II and the establishment of a parliament there was one peasant who was like, "Yeah but how are we going to make shoes? Without a king no shoes would be made!"

Then someone points out, "Well, if we need shoes we'll make them. We can decide together to use resources to make shoes. You know, like we've always done. Except we won't have a king."

And then the dumb peasant then says, "Hah! You're just making a new king! I knew it! There'll be a king of shoe making! Hahaha, not answering my questions either." And then the dumb peasant died of dysentery and nothing of value was lost.

[Baseball]

The purpose of your neurosis is not to find a solution, it is to create problems. No reasonable intellect requires detailed minutiae to understand basic social functioning unless they are purposefully being obtuse.

I mean, your questions are just nonsense. Who makes a decision to call up a militia? How does it get called? What the fuck are you talking about?! I thought we were talking about an individual being murdered, weren't we? Who gives a fuck who makes the decision or how it's called up? The point is that the militia will exist and there will be mechanisms in place to ensure people are protected. The minute details of how people administer those processes across the whole planet can't possibly be decided right now and there is absolutely no reason for them to be either.

This debate is nothing but an exercise in you asking as many mundane questions as you can possibly ask until someone is unable to answer, so that you can then claim victory over communism as being an ill-thought out administrative system. You think if you ask enough ridiculous questions that at some point you will be able to win the argument, fait accompli. Of course you don't seem to appreciate that the whole basis for your questions is founded on complete and utter bullshit.

The problem is obvious: The "minutia" has a name-- its called "government."
Its "government" that would call out the militia, its "government" which will establish and enforce the "mechanisms" that are in place to protect people, it is "government" which deal with the "minute details of how people administer those processes..."

[Baseball]

I am not restating my question I asked twice already and got no answer. I actually told you three times and you directly replied to all three. Now you're just playing dumb because you can't answer it. " there's no question" respond to my paradigm... This was like two pages back


Transitional period of socialism needs to occur you literally stated it

So then communism has social classes. Has power structure. Has government.

The argument is that this transition stage is NOT communism or socialism. It is conceded by the clear-headed hereabouts that a state of some undefined structure will need to exist, in order to crack skulls of those opposing the revolution, defend the revolution from outside capitalists ect (some of your problem here results from clashes with people who do not wish to think about the logical requirements of a transition period- who claim it is unimportant).

Once the workers have socialized the means of production, they can figure out how to build the socialist community. The explanation being requested here, to describe the nature of production in a fully socialiized society, does, as you have noted, causes a great deal of angst and frustration amongst the socialists. Which is disappointing, considering that it is really the only thing which can possibly prove their theories.

[Baseball]

No. It is capitalism that is in transition, not socialism, so it it is the transition of capitalism.

Now, as we've seen, you think capitalism and socialism are the same thing, so I'm hardly surprised your confused, but if you had actually absorbed anything over the last 16 pages, then you'd at least be able to tell where you were wrong.

So; you are wrong about a transition of socialism, there is a transition of capitalism. When capitalist society has been transformed, it becomes socialism. Is that clear?

Now; why on earth do you think there are classes in communist society?

Why not the term transition of socialism? It has been made clear by many that nobody knows exactly what a socialist community will look like. Indeed, it has been said that it doesn't matter much. Will all socialists really agree when that magical moment arrives?

[Baseball]

No. It is capitalism that is in transition, not socialism, so it it is the transition of capitalism.

Now, as we've seen, you think capitalism and socialism are the same thing, so I'm hardly surprised your confused, but if you had actually absorbed anything over the last 16 pages, then you'd at least be able to tell where you were wrong.

So; you are wrong about a transition of socialism, there is a transition of capitalism. When capitalist society has been transformed, it becomes socialism. Is that clear?

Now; why on earth do you think there are classes in communist society?

Why not the term transition of socialism? It has been made clear by many that nobody knows exactly what a socialist community will look like. Indeed, it has been said that it doesn't matter much. Will all socialists really agree when that magical moment arrives?

[Libertie76]

Lots of it has to do with capitalism. Capitalism creates the clothing, the popular culture, the social stratification. Capitalism gives men the means of production, and therefore men wield the privilege and power in society, whether it's used against women or any minority ethnic group is irrelevant. Women are not just machines for sexual reproduction. That's perversion brought on by the capitalist mind.

Anyway, you clearly didn't read Mistress Sinistra's post.

Wow and free market capitalism also let's women decide what to buy and what not to buy. The social stratification is not capitalism fault it's societies fault. You like to blame the wrong thing all the time. I'm jot arguing society has fd up qualities to it, but I am suggesting if women around the world united to change the idea of clothing and pop culture all they would have to do is stop buying it. That's it and the problem is solved.

Also her argument was ridiculous she said she can't buy skimpy clothes without looking like a slut but then they are seen as baby makers. I don't think capitalism creates a mentality that women are machines for sexual reproduction. I am actually utterly surprised you feel like capitalism does not create freedom in economics it's pretty shocking

[Libertie76]

I bet, on the eve of the Glorious Revolution, when a group of peasants got together to discuss the proposed toppling of King James II and the establishment of a parliament there was one peasant who was like, "Yeah but how are we going to make shoes? Without a king no shoes would be made!"

Then someone points out, "Well, if we need shoes we'll make them. We can decide together to use resources to make shoes. You know, like we've always done. Except we won't have a king."

And then the dumb peasant then says, "Hah! You're just making a new king! I knew it! There'll be a king of shoe making! Hahaha, not answering my questions either." And then the dumb peasant died of dysentery and nothing of value was lost.

You are a complete ludicrous fool to try to suggest this, I don't think you truly understand the difference of the revolution of the 1600s and the socialist revolution.

The socialist revolution would need a complete re education world wide or it can not work. It would need to completely change the functions of how to economize and how to govern.

It's not about how we can make the shoe without he king. It's how are we going to collectively decide what is a need and what is a want and how are we going to make sure we don't create mass surplus and shortage with absolutely no form of oversight over the means if production whether it be by market and money or government.

The responses I received about this question was that " well just know" effectively. Well I'm sorry but that just does not work. With that system we need to understand what we're going to do to sustain directly and for the future after the revolution, the common consensus I received here is that we have no idea how to protect the new republic to maintain unity, and we have no idea how to economize. Everyone is just going to work together and be happy and there won't be any problems and we will inherently have an abundance of goods and you can have whatever you want. I'm sorry but this just does not happen.

[Tim Cornelis]

There are laws in communism, they are just not legislated into existence. We'd have some sort of customary law. Historic stateless societies have had laws as well.

Production would be regulated via social planning. Resources, measured in labour time, could be divided up by category. So a certain amount of resources are reserved for fixed investment or research and development. (Macro-economic planning).

Within these categories, the precise amount of resources dedicated to products for end use is informed by consumer demand (detailed planning). Consumer demand will be measured by direct input of consumers about their prospected consumption patterns and other demand forecasting instruments. In the first phase of communism we distribute work points as rationing measure and this can be used to asses demand as well. Work points cancel out against 'consumption points' (equivalent of prices in socialism). Each product will be stamped with their labour time, and in cases of shortages the consumption points for a product will be raised, and in cases of surpluses it will be lowered. This is how it's ensured that we don't produce excessive amounts of pianos at the expense of vitamins -- although general equilibrium is unattainable in non-perfect conditions I'd say.

Does this require a government? Yes, but self-government suffices.

[Libertie76]

There are laws in communism, they are just not legislated into existence. We'd have some sort of customary law. Historic stateless societies have had laws as well.

Production would be regulated via social planning. Resources, measured in labour time, could be divided up by category. So a certain amount of resources are reserved for fixed investment or research and development. (Macro-economic planning).

Within these categories, the precise amount of resources dedicated to products for end use is informed by consumer demand (detailed planning). Consumer demand will be measured by direct input of consumers about their prospected consumption patterns and other demand forecasting instruments. In the first phase of communism we distribute work points as rationing measure and this can be used to asses demand as well. Work points cancel out against 'consumption points' (equivalent of prices in socialism). Each product will be stamped with their labour time, and in cases of shortages the consumption points for a product will be raised, and in cases of surpluses it will be lowered. This is how it's ensured that we don't produce excessive amounts of pianos at the expense of vitamins -- although general equilibrium is unattainable in non-perfect conditions I'd say.

Does this require a government? Yes, but self-government suffices.

So you're effectively turning labor time stamping into value. Well just call this labor value, considering the thought of consumption points is the same thing as paper money. So when there is a surplus of a product, such as a piano, then the labor value will drop and when there is a shortage labor value will be raised. But it will require economists to effectively be the deciding factor of this value since there isn't any inherent value to labor and there is no market

Considering this concept is the rationalized idea of socializing the economy and socializing government, you effectively create more then one means to production. The people who produce and the people who decide the inherent value of the production, unless of course you think the entire planet will become economists that understand supply vs demand theories fully.

The problem with this concept is that for socialism to work in production you can't truly socialize the government. You even state that general equilibrium is unattainable in no. Perfect conditions, this shows that the only way for such a society to effectively work with a truly socialized government and a truly socialized economy is if it is in a utopian state.

The point of these questions is not to discredit people who are socialist it's to see if it is an offering of a better more efficient society then the one we currently have.

And the creation of laws would surely create a need for a group of people to enforce the laws correct? Unless you decide that everyone can enforce the laws, but the only possible outcome of such a scheme would constantly lead to civil war or fighting between majority's and minority unless there is a embodiment of some kind to be the decision factor of law breaking or not, such as a court system. But in creating a court system you no longer have socialized the government considering the courts would be a higher relation to society then the producer.

[The Feral Underclass]

This whole thread is like a Kafka novel. It would be called The Unanswerable Question, in which Joseph K sits in a room and has to answer the same question over and over again, and no matter how he varies the answer the same question still gets asked.

Yawn.

[Libertie76]

This whole thread is like a Kafka novel. It would be called The Unanswerable Question, in which Joseph K sits in a room and has to answer the same question over and over again, and no matter how he varies the answer the same question still gets asked.

Yawn.

What would be even better is if someone who believes full heartedly in a giant revolution killing millions of people could understand fully what they are fighting for.

The problem with Marxism is it has monopolized itself against any form of rational criticism, but you should admit that criticism is needed for an inherently effective society to run and maintain itself correct?

At first it promises any person the ability to an abundance of goods, and it suggests that if you create this system it would be an end to all suffering on the basis of economic classes. So naturally a big majority of people will sympathize towards this way of thinking

Secondly it also suggests that anyone who criticizes it, they are effectively a member of their class and their environment and all they are doing is oppressing the working class by questioning it.

However, the true concept of communism is inherently impossible, considering that it has given no rational thinking person any idea on how it can sustain itself by socializing production and socializing government at the same time. This is the true reality of communism, which is why when people give real questions to the functions of society the people who believe in it will always turn to insults as a way to sustain their ideology that the people questioning it are just members of an oppressive class.

[The Feral Underclass]

For anyone interested in having a constructive discussion on the issues raised in this thread, I have started a new one here: How should we govern ourselves? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-we-govern-t191080/index.html?t=191080)

I would love to get people's input.

[Libertie76]

For anyone interested in having a constructive discussion on the issues raised in this thread, I have started a new one here: How should we govern ourselves? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-we-govern-t191080/index.html?t=191080)

I would love to get people's input.

But the people in that new thread will only look at it with an already predisposed belief to not questioning Marxism, hence people might propose suggestions to the governing plan but people wont question the real questions of how its going actually create the socialization of production and socialization government at the same time, only a true critic to the actual system itself can really create the theories that will actually make it feasibly possible.

The people posting will only suggest things to an already consensual agreement of a system, an agreement that no body from experience can say actually works.

You're effectively trying to cut and run without answering anything yourself to gain support for something that you don't really understand how it functions.

See this is the true ignorance of this way of thinking, is that people think we can force a conversion into a whole new way of practice without knowing what the way of practice actually is.

You call it scientific socialism based on the scientific theory, but this is not even the case because people can hypothesize about what would actually happen in a true socialist society. They can not say its based on science, without actually applying the scientific method to the system. As far as I am concerned, no body has ever done this.

So please, go ahead and discuss plans to create a way that can socialize government and socialize economics completely, however your not going to be able to figure out a way to do so because it is utterly impossible unless it becomes a utopian state.

[The Feral Underclass]

But the people in that new thread will only look at it with an already predisposed belief to not questioning Marxism, hence people might propose suggestions to the governing plan but people wont question the real questions of how its going actually create the socialization of production and socialization government at the same time, only a true critic to the actual system itself can really create the theories that will actually make it feasibly possible.

And as has been addressed in this thread, your criticism is nonsense.

[RedWorker]

We thoroughly answered all kinds of ludicrous bullshit and he says this?

[The Feral Underclass]

^He's a troll. He's not actually here for a discussion.

[Libertie76]

We thoroughly answered all kinds of ludicrous bullshit and he says this?

You have not given me one thorough response to how we can possibly socialize government and socialize production at the same time, the answers you give are not proving any form of sense. What so ever.

Such as, if you create a society with socialized production and socialized government how can you possibly regulate supply and demand and effectively take out all direct ownership of goods since everything that is your is shared

how can you possibly share things that are produced as consumption, such as an apple. How can you possibly share an apple?

Furthermore, how can someone share the disposal of a product? If you are wearing a sweatshirt how can you effectively share it with society? Does that constitute as direct ownership? If there is such things as direct ownership how can you truly socialize the disposal process in the society?

[Libertie76]

And as has been addressed in this thread, your criticism is nonsense.

Its addressed as "well figure it out when the problem arrives"

This is a form of new political and economic thought, this is suppose to replace the system we have and your solution is its not your problem to understand how the system works as well as well figure it out when it happens?

[Libertie76]

^He's a troll. He's not actually here for a discussion.

Im here to address my own concerns on why socialism is a more efficient practice then capitalism. If you cant explain it to me efficiently then you should just not respond

[The Feral Underclass]

Im here to address my own concerns on why socialism is a more efficient practice then capitalism. If you cant explain it to me efficiently then you should just not respond

You're here to be antagonistic. You have had responses to your questions but they are not the responses you want. Well, that's just tough shit.


This is a form of new political and economic thought, this is suppose to replace the system we have and your solution is its not your problem to understand how the system works as well as well figure it out when it happens?

I have never said it's not "my problem," I have said that it is not possible to formulate the plans you want us to formulate, nor is it desirable. That is the response you have been given.

[RedWorker]

After over 450 posts, you don't grasp basic facts. We don't want to remove direct ownership of goods.

[The Feral Underclass]

After over 450 posts, you don't grasp basic facts. We don't want to remove direct ownership of goods.

He also mischaracterises communist society, fails to understand communist ideology and generally has no interest in listening. He should just be banned.

[Libertie76]

After over 450 posts, you don't grasp basic facts. We don't want to remove direct ownership of goods.

So then if you don't remove direct ownership of goods how do you socialize the disposal process of goods, which is a huge important part of the production process

[RedWorker]

It is already 'socialized'. They are only not free.

[Libertie76]

You're here to be antagonistic. You have had responses to your questions but they are not the responses you want. Well, that's just tough shit.



I have never said it's not "my problem," I have said that it is not possible to formulate the plans you want us to formulate, nor is it desirable. That is the response you have been given.

"The role of communist militants is not to make pre-defined plans for how a future society is administered. Our role is to organise against capitalism. Establishing a communist society is the role of "the people." It is not the role of a group of communists sat on an internet message board."

Do you understand how this quote can be mistaken for "not my problem"?

[Lord Testicles]

"The role of communist militants is not to make pre-defined plans for how a future society is administered. Our role is to organise against capitalism. Establishing a communist society is the role of "the people." It is not the role of a group of communists sat on an internet message board."

Do you understand how this quote can be mistaken for "not my problem"?

Yes, but only if you are an idiot with a reading comprehension problem.

[Libertie76]

It is already 'socialized'. They are only not free.

Yes, its already socialized in capitalism because it directly results of the society's willingness to obtain the product that is to be disposed, but im talking about in a communist society how do you socialize the disposal process?

In other words, how do you create this without a division of labor. If there is a division of labor, then in all reality its not truly socialized is it thus saying it does not belong to the state it belongs to the person correct?

[Libertie76]

Yes, but only if you are an idiot with a reading comprehension problem.

HAHAHAHA im actually happy you came back into the conversation because you make me laugh

[RedWorker]

Yes, its already socialized in capitalism because it directly results of the society's willingness to obtain the product that is to be disposed, but im talking about in a communist society how do you socialize the disposal process?

In other words, how do you create this without a division of labor. If there is a division of labor, then in all reality its not truly socialized is it thus saying it does not belong to the state it belongs to the person correct?


This question does not make sense - what does it have to do with a division of labour? This would be the same way it is done now, except there would be no money. And yes, it "belongs" to the person.

[Lord Testicles]

HAHAHAHA im actually happy you came back into the conversation because you make me laugh

You make me think "can someone be this thick and still be considered a homo sapien?"

I think it's a possibility that you are a dog or a parrot that has developed enough intellect to learn how to type... poorly.

[Libertie76]

This question does not make sense - what does it have to do with a division of labour? This would be the same way it is done now, except there would be no money. And yes, it "belongs" to the person.

But if it belongs to the disposer, and there's no money then what makes him dispose it? If it belongs to the disposer then it divides labor because his role in the production process is different then the actual producers.

The only answer to this is to allocate for markets, which then creates a form of capitalism and does not socialize production, or to allocate for government authority over the process which then does not socialize government

[Libertie76]

You make me think "can someone be this thick and still be considered a homo sapien?"

I think it's a possibility that you are a dog or a parrot that has developed enough intellect to learn how to type... poorly.

Well i'm glad a dog knows more about economic theory then yourself, i guess I blame that one on capitalism

[RedWorker]

It doesn't go to the 'disposer'. It goes out for delivery.

[Libertie76]

It doesn't go to the 'disposer'. It goes out for delivery.

To each persons doorstep?

[Tim Cornelis]

So you're effectively turning labor time stamping into value. Well just call this labor value, considering the thought of consumption points is the same thing as paper money. So when there is a surplus of a product, such as a piano, then the labor value will drop and when there is a shortage labor value will be raised. But it will require economists to effectively be the deciding factor of this value since there isn't any inherent value to labor and there is no market

Considering this concept is the rationalized idea of socializing the economy and socializing government, you effectively create more then one means to production. The people who produce and the people who decide the inherent value of the production, unless of course you think the entire planet will become economists that understand supply vs demand theories fully.

The problem with this concept is that for socialism to work in production you can't truly socialize the government. You even state that general equilibrium is unattainable in no. Perfect conditions, this shows that the only way for such a society to effectively work with a truly socialized government and a truly socialized economy is if it is in a utopian state.

The point of these questions is not to discredit people who are socialist it's to see if it is an offering of a better more efficient society then the one we currently have.

And the creation of laws would surely create a need for a group of people to enforce the laws correct? Unless you decide that everyone can enforce the laws, but the only possible outcome of such a scheme would constantly lead to civil war or fighting between majority's and minority unless there is a embodiment of some kind to be the decision factor of law breaking or not, such as a court system. But in creating a court system you no longer have socialized the government considering the courts would be a higher relation to society then the producer.

1) Labour values don't change. The labour value is the labour time embedded in a product and this change is not contingent on demand changes. Paper money is different in that it circulates, points cancel out and disappear. It will require economists advising production units, and production units following their advice because they have no reason not to, and they have a reason to: optimal distribution of resources (although not a strong incentive, since it's collective, they, again, have no interest in not doing it).

2) Creating more than one means of production? I don't know what that means. There are, evidently, more than one means of production ... The people who produce stamp the products they create with whatever consumption points level the statistical planning bureau of sorts has calculated because they have no economic interest in doing so (altering the consumption points doesn't affect their work points).

3) Customary law will mostly rely on voluntary compliance as a result of reciprocity. As with customary international law, compliance with international law (not enforced) is higher than domestic law (enforced) -- although these are not terribly good comparisons despite both being customary law systems.


What would be even better is if someone who believes full heartedly in a giant revolution killing millions of people could understand fully what they are fighting for.

Personally I have. And most here have I'm guessing.

Fundamental Principles of Production and Distribution by GIC. (Dutch-German left communist or council communist).
Towards a New Socialism by Cotrell and Cockshott (Unorthodox Stalinism).
Workers' Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society by Paul Cardan (libertarian socialist-esque).
Workers' Councils by Pannekoek (council communist).
Parecon books (kinda shitty).

Personally I've been writing a book about how socialism may work based on Marxist theory numbering 204 a4 pages so far, not for publishing as it doesn't contribute anything new, but for a self-published book to have on my book shelf, point being I think I understand what I'm fighting for.

[Lord Testicles]

Well i'm glad a dog knows more about economic theory then yourself, i guess I blame that one on capitalism

You don't know the difference between oversite and oversight.

You warned against making too many pianos for fear that we would use up all the vitamins.

You don't know that you capitalise the "I" when you type "I'm".

Let's not pretend that you know anything about economics.

[The Feral Underclass]

"The role of communist militants is not to make pre-defined plans for how a future society is administered. Our role is to organise against capitalism. Establishing a communist society is the role of "the people." It is not the role of a group of communists sat on an internet message board."

Do you understand how this quote can be mistaken for "not my problem"?

Not really. But your inability to understand only underlines your issue. Namely, this concept of "otherness" that you are espousing. That the life of the politics of society is "other" than the people who live in society.

You have to stop conceptualising politics in a way that assumes it to be specialised and carried out by professional political operatives who exist separately to the people they govern.

I am a communist militant. Right now it is my role to instigate class conflict. I am not the architect of a new society. That role is for everyone at the point where capitalism is defeated ideologically and militarily. It is only possible and desirable for us to speak in broad terms. To break that down into minutiae is impossible and counter-revolutionary.

[RedWorker]

Personally I've been writing a book about how socialism may work based on Marxist theory numbering 204 a4 pages so far, not for publishing as it doesn't contribute anything new, but for a self-published book to have on my book shelf, point being I think I understand what I'm fighting for.

Finally something good to come out of this thread. Why don't you show us?

[Libertie76]

1) Labour values don't change. The labour value is the labour time embedded in a product and this change is not contingent on demand changes. Paper money is different in that it circulates, points cancel out and disappear. It will require economists advising production units, and production units following their advice because they have no reason not to, and they have a reason to: optimal distribution of resources (although not a strong incentive, since it's collective, they, again, have no interest in not doing it).

2) Creating more than one means of production? I don't know what that means. There are, evidently, more than one means of production ... The people who produce stamp the products they create with whatever consumption points level the statistical planning bureau of sorts has calculated because they have no economic interest in doing so (altering the consumption points doesn't affect their work points).

3) Customary law will mostly rely on voluntary compliance as a result of reciprocity. As with customary international law, compliance with international law (not enforced) is higher than domestic law (enforced) -- although these are not terribly good comparisons despite both being customary law systems.



Personally I have. And most here have I'm guessing.

Fundamental Principles of Production and Distribution by GIC. (Dutch-German left communist or council communist).
Towards a New Socialism by Cotrell and Cockshott (Unorthodox Stalinism).
Workers' Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society by Paul Cardan (libertarian socialist-esque).
Workers' Councils by Pannekoek (council communist).
Parecon books (kinda shitty).

Personally I've been writing a book about how socialism may work based on Marxist theory numbering 204 a4 pages so far, not for publishing as it doesn't contribute anything new, but for a self-published book to have on my book shelf, point being I think I understand what I'm fighting for.

Which is obviously evident, and i hold your opinions above any other person in this forum, However

1) Economists planning the inherent value of labor time to consumption needs either does not socialize the government, or it does not socialize the production because it causes a division of labor in accordance to role in production, or it acts as a governing force over the production process

2) I was under the impression that "means to production" is the Marxist term for social class, maybe it creates a division of labor in regards to the production process? just because they have no economic interest in doing so in the terms of money doesn't suggest that they wont have economic interest in doing so with their own ideals on economizing. Such as, a stamper might be given a certain amount of points to use for food but he decides food needs to be given less points because its more important. Even if the economist bureau decides to say it has a higher labor value. If you say this wont happen, you have no possible way to prevent it from happening. When i worked at restaurants i would always give people discounts because i disagreed with the price, or i wouldn't fully charge them. Not because i liked them but because i personally felt the price was too high.

3) Yes, but the call for a law requires enforcement having a system of just volunteers still does not allocate for actually upholding the law. If the volunteers extend their reaches then who will hold them responsible? Society? What if society doesn't all agree that they are responsible, then it becomes a vote? Casein point, if the killer of Michael brown was only held to a vote and society voted he was innocent do you think people will always just respect that decision? or will they riot? And if they do riot, then what would stop the riot from spreading, a volunteer arm but no actual designated action of unity? Do you truly trust humanity to unite regardless if they agree or not?

[motion denied]

i was under the impression that "means to production" is the marxist term for social class

10/10

[Libertie76]

Finally something good to come out of this thread. Why don't you show us?

Good question dodge, change subject tactic.

Does the good go from factory and get delivered to every persons doorstep yes or no

[Libertie76]

10/10

I thought you were done posting on here?

[RedWorker]

Does the good go from factory and get delivered to every persons doorstep yes or no

To wherever it was planned to go to, such as a store or another factory which needs it.

[Lord Testicles]

I thought you were done posting on here?

I guess some people can't help but point out what a dumb shit you are.

[Libertie76]

To wherever it was planned to go to, such as a store or another factory which needs it.

Who does the planning?

[RedWorker]

The council.