Communism Through Laissez-Faire

[DReaver13]

The only way that Communism has being attempted is through Socialism, full state power, and it has failed every time.

I know capitalism is the scourge of the left-wing, but if the system moved more and more right, with less and less control from the government, then people started buying more and more into the means of production, would communism be attainable?

Is not Communism just communitarian laissez-faire?

If we did live in a laissez-faire society, I can imagine me and my friends creating a commune within L-F. Working together in the interests of our little group would give us greater chance of being successful than an individual would. Who's to say this commune couldn't extend to all people?

Just a thought.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

An interesting idea but lf is the direct opposite of communism.

LF is essentially a free for all capitalist state with no regulation.

The basis is capitalism not socialism.

[wet blanket]

I'd actually prefer a L-F economy to our current one. If the government wasn't so goddamn involved with the economy, stronger unions would become a much more appealing concept to workers who no longer have the nanny-state to watch over them... A revolutionary movement would be much more feasible under a "leave alone" economy.

[Subversive Pessimist]

I know capitalism is the scourge of the left-wing, but if the system moved more and more right, with less and less control from the government, then people started buying more and more into the means of production, would communism be attainable?

It's not that easy. The means of production falls into the hands of a few persons. Capitalism leads to concentration in power, and so "the people" wouldn't have the control, but a few persons.
The majority of people does not have control over the means of production.

But it is an interesting thought indeed.

[DReaver13]

Such freedom could lead to the means of production accumulating into a few hands, but no one has actual social power. A union of workers would be many times more powerful than in current society. Instead of the police swooping in and ending strikes, strikes would be able to carry on until demands were met. The workers would have the power.

Communism through laissez-faire seems more viable than through socialism. There is no-one to be corrupted by power, and there is much greater freedom. Human beings with emotions, who actually care about their fellow man, would be able to unite against the owners and there would be no government for the owners to run to and hide behind.

I am surprised that no-one has thought of this before. :blink:

[New Tolerance]

This has also been talked about on Capitalist Paradise forums:

http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparad...p?showtopic=189 (http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparadise/index.php?showtopic=189)

[wet blanket]

I'd much rather see an anarcho-syndicalistm.. Nobody is corrupted as there's no state, yet people work together without the wage system and market. Everybody wins! ;)

I don't think a 'leave-alone' economy would result in anything but a bunch of huge totalitarian corporations with absolute control of the 'free market', much less a communism.

[DReaver13]

This has also been talked about on Capitalist Paradise forums:
Indeed it has ; by me!

http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparad...wtopic=189Page2 (http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparadise/index.php?showtopic=189&st=15)

It remains a fairly reasonable idea to me. I don't know what anarcho-syndicalism is so I can't comment.

[redstar2000]

Don't forget that in Marx's own time, laissez-faire was the official policy in many capitalist countries, England and the United States being the outstanding examples.

Government intervention into capitalism was at the request of the capitalists as much or more than as any consequence of popular discontent.

Indeed, you can look at modern Russia to see the outcome of laissez-faire: competition reaches such levels of unrestrained violence that it's cheaper to kill your business rivals and burn down their factories than it is to "out-compete" them economically.

In addition, government regulation was introduced to "do something" about the ever-more-destructive "business cycles".

For all the capitalist rhetoric about "risk", the fact of the matter is that they hate risk...they want a "sure thing". A official government-granted monopoly is their ideal, but there are many useful things that their government can do for them short of the ultimate goal.

What they dislike are any regulations that interfere with their desires to maximize profit...such as minimum wage laws, unemployment benefits, environmental regulations, etc. Nevertheless, they can live with those minor annoyances as long as the government protects them from other capitalists.

That's also why the "Libertarian Party" will never "get off the ground"...the big money boys won't allow that to happen. They have too much "at risk" as it is to put up with total unrestrained competition.

Their lives, for example.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[DReaver13]

Don't forget that in Marx's own time, laissez-faire was the official policy in many capitalist countries, England and the United States being the outstanding examples.
I never knew that in the first place. :huh: So, what is all this that objectivists say about L-F never existing?

L-F Capitalists say that they will be protected from force and nothing else. Mass refusal to work for low wages would not be force, yet it would force the owners to lower wages, or society would cease to function.

[New Tolerance]

Indeed it has ; by me!

http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparad...wtopic=189Page2

It remains a fairly reasonable idea to me. I don't know what anarcho-syndicalism is so I can't comment.

I was in that conservation too.

But it seems to be the guy that Inspector first quoted who suggested the idea. Ironic, a conservative inciting an idea that might lead to some progress in terms of communism.

[__ca va?]

Errr I've already posted this in an other thread, but theconcept of this thread is close to my post, so I thought I'd put it here. The debate was over whether communism could be achieved through capitalism...


It seems like it&#39;s only capitalism that can work at the present state of the world... <_<

But I lay stress on consciousness&#33;&#33; Although feudalism lasted for over a millenium, people realised that they are being opressed and overthrew feudalism. Now, in capitalism people think they are free because they have their political rights (this only stands for the western world). Political rights were the achievements of the Enlightment and the french revolution of 1789. But in the present we need economical rights: the right to better living standards for everyone.
And it is going to be the intellectual class which is going to realize this and spread consciousness among the proletariat and the middle classes. Because it&#39;s the middle class that must get to know that the capitalist system is selfish and though it fastens progress it exploits the wider part of the society and keeps the masses uncoscious (telling them to watch films, programmes on tv, buy the newest clothes etc. and thus mislead them from the real meaning of human existance&#33;)

I hope you got what I wanted to express though my English is not too good :unsure:

I think laissez-faire is closely linked to capitalism so posting this was not without sense

[sanpal]

Communism through laissez-faire seems more viable than through socialism

Communism is self-government society so it is communism through laissez-faire by definition.

Communism cannot be as a transformation of socialism by definition because they have different economic systems. But socialism or, rather, proletarian socialism is necessary condition for creation of communes inside of market surroundings and their protection from residuary bourgeois sector of economy.

If communist sector of economy will increase so bourgeois one will be "wither away". Labour "flows" go there where it&#39;s better.

What is capitalism? Capitalism = socialism with ZERO-protection of population.
What is socialism? Socialism = capitalism with 100%-protection of population.

Nowadays we have different mixing of these two conceptions which were named as S-D.

[redstar2000]

So, what is all this that objectivists say about L-F never existing?

Historical ignorance, I suspect.

They are "utopian capitalists", after all, and not real businessmen.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas