Dark Reaver's Communism

[DReaver13]

I have begun composing my own theory based on communist ideas. Btw "Dark Reavers" doesn't imply it is some sort of evil thing, it's just the name of my website / alias. This is in the making, but here are some of my ideas.

The Fundamental Aims Of Dark Reaver's Communism :
1.) True liberation of the all people. They are free, and not 'forced' by another person or by societal situations to "do" anything that is not in their interests alone, or simply against their interests. As judged by themselves.

2.) Economic life to become secondary to social life. Work must cease to be a means to an end. People should not have to work for 5 sevenths of their lives in order to achieve a respectable standard of living.
Today, the middle class works longer hours than the ancient Romans or Egyptians, yet supposedly we have advanced.

3.) Violence used against another person or group is wrong and must be prevented.

4.) Abolition of money. It has become a false representation of value, goods are overpriced through tax and greed of producers.

5.) No person has more power than any other person. No group of people has any more power than any individual. Everyone has the freedom to own their own lives and choose to live it as they see fit.

6.) New laws (beyond the fundamental ones) based on the consensual (democratic) agreement of society, which should be enforced by a community based police force. (This is not force since it is preserving individuals from force, not initiating it).

7.) Equality of opportunity is essential. All should begin life with the same opportunities as anyone else to achieve success and happiness.

8.) All should receive the standard means for survival for free, food and shelter. Anything beyond these fundamentals is attained through higher degrees of work. Only those who work are paid although everyone would be guaranteed subsistence.

9.) A profitless (in terms of money) economy. There are only operating costs and salaries ; no profits. The would-be profits are used to enhance production efficiency and increase the returns to the workforce. The most enterprising managers, those who maximized production of high quality goods, would receive the highest salaries.

10.) Production replaces profit as the objective.

11.) Machines should be used to liberate people from the burden of mechanical and repetitive work rather than to suboordinate people or reduce human labour requirements.

I'd welcome some help in constructing more points, comments and constructive criticisms.

[Subversive Pessimist]

I would say that's about the basics of communism. 150 years ago, that might have been a new idea, but today it's not. =/

If I were to give any tips, I would say you should focus on the more complex issues of society. As an example:

Construction of society:

1.1. Is there going to be any limit of work a person has to do?
1.2. What are we going to do about those who are lazy in society?


Morality and ethics:

2.1. Stance on abortion and alternatives (caesarean section and adoption, for instance).
2.2. Punishment in a communist society
2.3 Authority (during the transitional stage of communism, socialism, and afterwards)
2.4 Should the vote have be earned?


Military:

3.1. Workers militia or standing army?
3.2 If the choice is a standing army, will they be used in peacetime doing productive work, such as for instance working in industry or in agriculture?
3.3 If there will be a standing army: Conscription or volentary service?

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 01:26 PM
4.) Abolition of money. It has become a false representation of value, goods are overpriced through tax and greed of producers.

8.) All should receive the standard means for survival for free, food and shelter. Anything beyond these fundamentals is attained through higher degrees of work. Only those who work are paid although everyone would be guaranteed subsistence.

9.) A profitless (in terms of money) economy. There are only operating costs and salaries ; no profits. The would-be profits are used to enhance production efficiency and increase the returns to the workforce. The most enterprising managers, those who maximized production of high quality goods, would receive the highest salaries.

What are you going to 'pay' these people with after you eliminate money? Wheat? Washing Machines? The reason for the advent of money was that it was durable, nonperishable, divisible and transportable. If you're going to do away with money and yet keep paying salaries I'd like to know what you're going to enumerate them in. Salt, perhaps?

Other than that, and I don't want to sound like a dick (but I usually do anyway), this is not a theory, it's just a list of principles, most of which are canonical communist principles.

[DReaver13]

1.1. Is there going to be any limit of work a person has to do?
1.2. What are we going to do about those who are lazy in society?
In my initial version of these principles I put forward answers to these. Originally I said :


A work 'standard' would be set. This means everyone works an equal amount in terms of the value of the work to society. 'Work' which does not benefit society would not be considered 'work' at all.

When demand rises for particular things (luxuries), people pursue 'secondary work' to create those through their own choice. Then it will be the people who demand such things that will make them. This will create minor inequalities but since the majority do not want the said item, the will not care. If they wanted it, they could have participated in the venture.

People should be compensated for the full value of their labour. The value of labour would be judged by sociologists. 'Value' of labour would be it's value to society, not to the individual.

But setting limits contradicts the principle that you can't initiate force. If you can't force people to attain this standard, no-one will.


What are you going to 'pay' these people with after you eliminate money? Wheat? Washing Machines?
I was hoping for help on this. Perhaps credit could be accumulated through working, and once you reach your quota, you can leave work and enjoy your life. If you work beyond the quota you gain additional credit to acquire luxuries? Achieving the quota (which could be weekly or monthly) allows you to keep your subsistence 'property'.


Other than that, and I don't want to sound like a dick (but I usually do anyway), this is not a theory, it's just a list of principles, most of which are canonical communist principles.
Yes, these are the principles behind my theory.

[Subversive Pessimist]

This might sound stupid, but if these are your principles behind your theory, where's your theory? How are you going to create a society based on these principles?

[DReaver13]

This might sound stupid, but if these are your principles behind your theory, where's your theory? How are you going to create a society based on these principles?
My theory is within a word document. I don't want to post it yet becuase it is constantly evolving and i'm constantly amending it. The theory is based on those principles. I don't think I quite have the power to create a society yet, much as i'd like to :) .

[Guest1]

Alright, first off, this is Social Democracy at best.

Communism requires the elimination of classes and workers' control of the means of production.

Yet you speak of enterprising managers, meaning Capitalists still controlling the means of production.

Instead of that, you should look at the Syndicalist tradition of worker management.

Votes on the management of the workplace, with the people involved in the work deciding what is to be done. Votes across the entire workplace for major decisions.

As for money, you can't abolish it simply to replace it with credit. If you want to abolish it, abolish it completely.

Look up gift economies if you wanna know how that works.

Basically, since everything is voted on locally, it works. You must work according to your ability for free. You get everything according to your need (and a little more for comfort) for free. If you either work less than your ability, or take more than your need, people around you notice. They may ignore it for a bit, but push it, and they will vote you out.

That's how you rid yourself of lazyness and greed.

[DReaver13]

Yet you speak of enterprising managers, meaning Capitalists still controlling the means of production.
Don't you need managers though? I mean managers just as another category of worker. Their job is to organize production in the best way possible, they do not own the means of production.


Votes on the management of the workplace, with the people involved in the work deciding what is to be done. Votes across the entire workplace for major decisions.
This is the alternative to the above I suppose. Does this not assume that all the workers simply know what is best for efficiency? They would have to be very well informed to be able to collectively manage production.


That's how you rid yourself of lazyness and greed.
Which are quite high priorities for me.

[DReaver13]

Okay my new theory is being completely rewritten from the beginning. The above principles may or may not find themselves in the new version. When I have made a bit more progress I will post the theory. It is in Russian at the moment so I will need to translate it, but it's looking good so far!! I have started at the very beginning with metaphysics and epistemology, then I will move on to ethics, and finally politics.

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by "DReaver13"+--> ("DReaver13")Violence used against another person or group is wrong and must be prevented.[/b]

I'm afraid I disagree. Revolution and execution are all fine by me, in fact, I'm a promoter of both.


"DReaver13"
All should receive the standard means for survival for free, food and shelter. Anything beyond these fundamentals is attained through higher degrees of work. Only those who work are paid although everyone would be guaranteed subsistence.

Another disagreement from me. Everything you need to live (and keep on living, that includes healthcare!) would be supplied under a socialist state ruled by myself. Work would only be necessary if you wanted nice extra things, like, say, a Trabant (http://www.reptilerooms.com/modules/PNphpBB2/images/smiles/icon_twisted.gif) or tickets to a Tchaikovsky concert.

[DReaver13]

Work would only be necessary if you wanted nice extra things
Well actually, people need to work for anything to be produced, not just extra things. Food doesn't fall from the sky, and fridges aren't beamed down to us by aliens.

The idea that violence is wrong, I don't know. It's only wrong to those who consider it to be, and it not inherantly 'wrong'. My new theory states this.

[DReaver13]

Okay I have translated my theory so far. It does go a bit beyond politics, in fact very much so, bit it still reaches a communistic conclusion (so far).

Okay, let me step back and look at the wider picture. Last night I forgot about everything I know and started from the very beginning on paper. I went through metaphysics and epistemology and almost reached ethics.

I wrote :

Metaphysics:
Existence = absolute. It could though, be one of many existences. The rules which are apparent within this existence could change, but by our understanding this is very unlikely.

The individual is separate from existence, yet also a part of it. One's senses are his only means of detecting this existence. A person's brain interprets what his senses to create his perception of existence as thought : the reflection of external existence within one's mind.

Existence as one perceives it has a multitude of rules or laws (e.g. that of gravity). One presumes the nature of these rules through experiencing them via evidence, which allows one to understand general causality within their existence. "If A happens, B is the result" ; and this will presumably happen every time. The same cause will have the same result each time it is performed. These are still only assumptions derived from one's perception / interpretation. It should be noted that true causality requires all the variables to be the same, and since this is impossible unless you can stop time and move atoms into previous position, then causality is not an accurate measure, just a general equation on which to base predictions.

However, true existence cannot be proven. Sensory perception and / or its interpretation may be wrong, making one's image of reality 'distorted'. In one's mind, this reality is the only known reality, whether it is distorted, perfectly coherent with reality, or totally skewed. We cannot prove the nature true existence, we can however believe in it for it must exist for our consciousness to exist at all. The only axiom is that true existence does exist.

Epistemology:
Moving on to humans in greater depth now. A human must grasp his reality in order to have any consciousness whatsoever. Consciousness cannot emerge out of nothingness. As above, senses are our only means of detecting this reality, and the mind is our only means of interpreting what we detect. If one's reality is then consistent enough, it can be believed to be true reality, if not proven.

Regardless of what this true reality is, the only thing that matters to any being is it's own perceived reality, since nothing outside of it affects the being's consciousness in any way. Alternate realities may also exist, but have no impact upon those who cannot comprehend them.

It can be believed that one's perception is accurate for that person, enough for that person to be able to operate and continue to exist within their reality.

Outside of the individual are other beings capable of perceiving the same reality and existence as each other and of the individual. They can therefore interact with this reality, and thus, other individuals. All individuals do not necessarily have the same interpretations (interpretation subjectivity) but those of the same species, for example humans, are likely to have similar interpretations. Without having someone else's consciousness, we can never know this for sure. Still, all beings can detect and interpret their existence and ascertain its laws and rules in order to understand this existence.

Summary of epistemology:
Beings acquire understanding and knowledge through firstly detecting existence via senses, and then creating one's perception via one's brain. Interacting with perceived existence is the only way to 'test' it, and therefore find out rules -- understanding. Understanding allows one to operate actively within existence. Existence does not however require understanding. A rock does not understand but it exists ; it is part of true reality, as is one's consciousness and one's body.

Beginning ethics:
Humans do not have innate needs. Only the various states that one can be in have needs for their sustenance. For a human to live, he needs food and oxygen for respiration. These are the primary prerequisites for human life. Similarly, death has prerequisites i.e. the removal of something essential for life, whether it be food, air or one's stomach.

Life and existence are separate. Living is a state that living beings have. Life is not a prerequisite for existence, but rather, existence is a prerequisite for life.

Neither life, nor death can be called 'necessities'. They are not necessary for existence. Life may be necessary for conscious existence, but then what is this necessary for? To answer this would be to suggest I know the meaning of life, or the purpose of existence, which I don't.

Humans, like all beings, seem to have a pre-programmed will to survive. From this we can assume that survival serves a purpose, even if we can never know what this purpose is. We can however try to find this purpose. Looking at our species and its history, purpose seems axiomatic.

From biological evidence, we can see that we are made to reproduce. This is undeniable and self-evident. Therefore our purpose (or one of them) may be to reproduce, to ensure the survival of our species in the future. We are also made with the capability for thought, not just simple basic thought, but innovative and imaginative thought. This indicates we are built to progress, to better ourselves, to find new and more effective ways of survival, not just individually, but for subsequent generations. Another purpose may be to contribute, to have impact, and not to fade into oblivion after we individually die. The fact that we die at all supports this purpose.

Without a collective purpose, our individual purpose amounts to nothing.

Without a collective purpose, we would not reproduce. Humanity would have died as soon as the last member of its first generation died.

Since individuals die in the end, and all the internal accomplishments of the individual disappear into nothingness (in terms of being able to further affect the reality in which they lived), the only logical way of preserving ‘survival’ is through external accomplishments. These are bestowed upon other people. ‘Survival’ after death can only be achieved through contribution to subsequent humanity.

Individual survival (i.e. life) cannot, logically, be a human purpose, since it can only be sustained so long as one is alive. Immortality is naturally impossible, and frankly, undesirable. Collective survival must, logically, be a human purpose; otherwise we would not have the facilities to reproduce. If we didn’t have the facilities to reproduce, we would not be here, and without the past achievements of other people we would not have progressed in any way since the very first human walked the earth.

I shall end it there for now, but I am constantly writing more offline. I shall add more when I have time. Comments are welcome.

[h&s]

Hey, you're on capitalist paradise aren't you? (in the anti-capitalism section of course)

[DReaver13]

Hey, you're on capitalist paradise aren't you? (in the anti-capitalism section of course)

Indeed I am. Trying desperately to find a fatal flaw in their beloved theories.

I also own the 'dark reavers' forums and www.darkreavers.co.uk (http://www.darkreavers.co.uk). ;)