Redstar2000's Communism Refuted

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I saw this exchange on another messageboard. It's pretty funny and not to mention enlightening. The bitter commie couldn't even defend his position. I think all of you should have a peek.

First, Redstar's definition of 'communism'.



Communism is a hypothetical social order in which there are /b{no classes} and consequently {no state} as an organ of class rule.

It is postulated that such a society will have little in the way of public authorities or "government" and that whatever is found to be useful will be "ultra-democratic" and rely heavily on internet referendums (direct democracy). These public authorities will almost exclusively be concerned with the large-scale co-ordination of production and distribution of goods and services, and most of their "decisions" are likely to be suggestive rather than compulsive.

There will be no formal "nation states" in a communist world, though many of the names may persist as geographic designations.

There will be no production of "commodities" -- goods and services produced for /b{sale} -- instead goods and services will be produced for /b{use} -- either by the producers themselves or freely given to those who will make good use of them.

There will be no "currency" as such; no money...though old currency units may be used for record-keeping purposes, they will have no independent utility.

Individual compensation will vary little, and that according to "need"...the ability to actually /b{use} what is appropriated from the public total.

People will have the freedom to gravitate to the "work" that they find most intrinsically rewarding for its own sake. But there will be considerable informal pressure to "work" at /b{something} useful. The stereotypical "lazy bum" will be an object of scorn and/or pity. Work that is so "bad" that no one wishes to do it will either be automated, shared out in some collective fashion so that no one has to do very much of it, or simply dispensed with altogether.

The social life of a communist society will be extraordinally libertarian; very few of the taboos and even fewer of the regulations that presently exist will still survive. Religion, if it survives at all, will be in the nature of a hobby, without the power to influence people's lives in any significant way.

Prestige in a communist society will come from /b{competence} and /b{reliability}...the highest respect will go to those who've demonstrated their ability to perform especially /b{useful} work that many will want to emulate.

The most utterly detested /b{crime} in communist society will be the attempt to "hire" wage-labor for the purpose of producing a "commodity". This will be regarded in the same way that we currently regard human sacrifice or chattel slavery...as an unspeakable horror and an attempt to "bring back" an old and disgustingly inhumane social order, namely capitalism.

Thus, the /b{hypothetical} features of a communist society, as extrapolated from the ideas of Marx and Engels.

Since such a social order has /b{never existed} for any significant period of time, we presently have no way of "knowing" if it will actually "work". More importantly, it is really unknown what kinds of things /b{must} be done and /b{must} be avoided to successfully manage the transition from capitalism to communism...although there are /b{many} theories about this. It seems likely that there will be several centuries of "trial and error" before the human species manages this transition successfully.


Below is a refutation by a brilliant, not to mention hilarious, poster on that forum.



People will have the freedom to gravitate to the "work" that they find most intrinsically rewarding for its own sake

Killer! Hashish and computer strategy games, from now on.

Viva la revolucion!

and most of their "decisions" are likely to be suggestive rather than compulsive.

Fantastico!

How many workers will be assigned to keep my pipe full?

Individual compensation will vary little, and that according to "need"...the ability to actually use what is appropriated from the public total.

Excellent! No sense sweating out that difficult work! You communists aren't so bad after all.

Religion, if it survives at all, will be in the nature of a hobby, without the power to influence people's lives in any significant way.

This actually sounds like a profoundly religious society -- one enormous monastery devoted to a very religious idea of how everybody should have to live and what they should value.

That's no problem, I will drink your wine and eat your cheese while you say your prayers and hoe the fields like good workers.

Prestige in a communist society will come from /b{competence and /b{reliability}...the highest respect will go to those who've demonstrated their ability to perform especially /b{useful} work that many will want to emulate. }

Now to be perfectly honest, I have my doubts here, though I don't want to discourage you guys from the very nose-to-the-grindstone attitude that will save me a lot of work and allow me to fully abandon all painful ambition for the life of intoxication, music, and computer games that I desire but cannot pragmatically pursue in this oppressive capitalist society.

In fact, people who work hard make everyone else look bad and tend to be resented, if you're all getting the same reward at the end of the day. This is not a controversial observation.

But, never mind all that. Work hard!!! I'll be over here in the shade sipping a nice gin and tonic.

The stereotypical "lazy bum" will be an object of scorn and/or pity.

Hmm... clean the latrines and dig ditches and handle sharp metal objects, OR, risk ridicule. Not a hard choice.

My friends and I would do nothing but smoke marijuana and heroin and play guitar while the rest of you toil away. And we would loudly point out to passersby what a bunch of saps you are over there in that field, for working when you could be enjoying the day like we do.

Or maybe not. It will be nice to have obedient communist servants taking care of all the little things for me.


It seems likely that there will be several centuries of "trial and error" before the human species manages this transition successfully.

WHAT? Now you spring this on me just as I was getting ready to put my feet up. You really wrecked your whole sales pitch with this one.

Link (http://www.mondopolitico.com/discus/messages/784/1003.html?1057256830)

Hilarious!!

Oh and here's Bruce Almighty's brilliant reply:


By redstar2000 on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 06:58 pm


How could I possibly respond to such thoughtful posts?

I know: click "Bookmarks", then click "Manage Bookmarks", then move the mouse to "Red Square", then click "DELETE".

Stupid gits!

(And a stupid formatting code.)

So...how exactly would a communist society function?

[NovelGentry]

You firmly believe the foolish arguments of what I can only imagine to be a selfish adolescent pothead outweighed everything Redstar said?

It pains me to think you actually consider this a reasonable argument against Redstar. And for the record, Redstar pretty much summed up communism and how it would work in that post.

[gnat]

You call that a refute, Capitalist Lawyer?

:blink:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Wow! Brilliant!
I'm sure swayed by tired jokes, harping on long-refuted points!

Meanwhile of course, Capitalist Lawyer's capitalism could never be the butt of such humour, because it is absolutely irreffutable.

Of course, when he's up against the wall, he can grumble about how I'm initiating force. Ooops. Well, I bought a bigger gun, idiot.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

So tell me ...who will "hoe the fields" "pick the strawberries" "clean the sewers" "flip our burgers" etc.....

"According to need"?

Who decides this "need"? What if I "need" 5 laptop computers? Who's going to make these for me and what will motivate them? Oh I get it, there are people out there who find assembling computers is intrinstically fun and rewarding for its own sake right?

'whatever is found useful';by whom? Who decides?

'large scale coordination of production and distribution'.Ah yes.Like the British Railways.Ever wonder why the roads here are so good?
But wait a minute.Who is able to co-ordinate?
The people's manager of the day?Or someone who is passionate about his job?Oh,and why will he remain passionate(how?)if every decision he makes is reversible and he can't keep any rational measure of his output?Still,there will be mental hospitals,won't there?

'no ..commodities'.
Sorry Jod,no coffee for you.Oh,wait.The coffee producers don't get enough now.So in future they will give it away.Maybe somebody will donate a spare toilet or bicycle occassionally.

Or they can live on coffee stew.Or croft.Still,crofting can only support about 15 million people in Britain(sorry,the 'British Isles').The other 45 million will just have to disappear.Not like the 7 million Russian farmers,of course.It will be entirely unplanned,voluntary wastage.Except where it is 'co-ordinated',by some other surviving people.

Well,at least that would be classed(sorry,'regarded') as 'large scale',wouldn't it?
individual compensation according to 'need'.

So individuals would be 'compensated' would they?How generous.And according to need.Who decides 'need'?And will I 'need' proof?Of my 'need'?

Of course,people who give to those in 'need' are committing charity.But if they only have what they 'need',what can they give?So,somebody will have to decide individual 'need'.And it must at least appear 'fair',so 'proof' is required.
This little state is getting bigger.
freedom to gravitate?"work"?You'd better believe we must work.If we don't,we will all die!
Nobody likes digging sewers.So we must dispense with this and live in our shit.

The 'social' life?So far,all life is classed as 'social' by you.Do you mean sex?If we have the energy?Still,less children would decrease the surplus population.
Anyway,forget the specifics.The punch line is-:
this will be regarded.

So the idea is to do it through 'education'.Not very original.But it seems to be the only way the communists can achieve a critical mass of 'social pressure'.
Note that that is the bit they avoid mentioning.

Too close to their real purpose.

[NovelGentry]

So tell me ...who will "hoe the fields" "pick the strawberries" "clean the sewers" "flip our burgers" etc.....

Oh look... I found this paper by this guy who seems to have already refuted such a point... strangely it's "Who will clean the sewers?" -- oh, and it's by... Redstar2000

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:8uuUr...&client=firefox (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:8uuUrShX2kIJ:www.redstar2000papers. fightcapitalism.net/theory.php%3Fsubaction%3Dshowfull%26id%3D108320282 3%26archive%3D%26cnshow%3Dheadlines%26start_from%3 D%26ucat%3D%26+redstar2000+who+will+clean+the+sewe rs&hl=en&client=firefox)

Google cache, his website is down.

The actual answers to your questions are littered around the board and within redstar's voluminous writing's, I suggest you ask the man you claim's argument was refuted by some childish pothead.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 06:06 AM
. . . childish pothead.
Can we quit throwing that around like an insult? I like some childish potheads.

[NovelGentry]

Can we quit throwing that around like an insult? I like some childish potheads.

Just cause you like them doesn't change what they are... I'm not implying all potheads are childish, but this kid was childish, and a pothead -- I think he made both very clear in his supposed refutes.

[Ian]

Forget asking reddy how communism will work, what I want to know is how does this dude 'smoke heroin'?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Capitalist Lawyer, if you think that dribble of puerile, pubescent drool counts as a refutation of Redstar2000's paradigm, then you are a frontal lobotomised half-wit that can't find your own arse with both hands, a flashlight and an atlas.
The content of the original post amply demonstrates Capitalist Lawyer's complete and utter intellectual immaturity, and invites comparisons between his brain matter (Or lack thereof) and fecal matter deposited by seagulls on one's car.
My suggestion to you is to either re-evaluate your actual capacity to cogitate clearly and without the insulting verbal diarrhea that you dare call an argument, or kindly cease spouting nonsensical gibberish that nobody could give a monkey's auto-eroticism over.

Thank you and have an awful life.

[workersunity]

you wouldnt need 5 laptops, everybody would know that, excess is shallow

[NovelGentry]

Quite the contrary, you might need 5 laptops... assume for a minute you're a software developer who programs and tests on different architectures. Get a PPC one, a regular x86 one, an ARM based tablet, a SPARC laptop (like that would ever happen), and maybe an Alpha one for legacy system no unsupported by the bastard offspring company that bought up DEC known as Compaq and now HP.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I would expect there to be a universal standard with variations under classless society, a la Linux today.

[NovelGentry]

Maybe a universal standard for software itself, but you have to understand different architectures offer different development in general. This is my point, the person might be making the same program on all different architectures, thus the software is something of a standard, but there are benefits to each kind of architecture for different devices. ARM is good for lower power consumption and embedded systems. PPC is excellent in multimedia and general floating point calculations. x86 is great if for no other reason than it's limits are pushed endlessly cause it's architecture is shit... etc...etc.

I'd never in my life want to se an x86 chip in any seriously small embedded device. However, I might want very much to have the same application/feature set on two devices. Besides, ruling out people's desire to create new and interesting things, including hardware architectures and system designs (particularly when it comes to computers) is a bit foolish.

This is afterall something that has proven to be a sustaining factor in open and communitive productive methods, as has been shown with Linux itself. This inherent curiosity is what pushes technology forward in all aspects. Lastly, I have no doubt computer manufacturing could be for the most part automated to produce the chips and what not (as it already is for the most part) and then ship out bare bones systems that people can build for themselves or ask their local tech guru to build for them.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 07:33 AM
I would expect there to be a universal standard . . .
*Gag*

Haven't we learned our lessons about grand over-reaching structures vs the reality of circumstances yet?

[Taiga]

Forget asking reddy how communism will work, what I want to know is how does this dude 'smoke heroin'?
Me too!!! I can't imagine the picture :lol:


Who decides this "need"? What if I "need" 5 laptop computers?
Try to learn the difference between the need and the whimsy.
If you really need 5 computers to work - then fine. If it's just a caprice - get out. Why should anybody serve your fancies? Because you have money? - oops, you don't. :lol:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Forget asking reddy how communism will work, what I want to know is how does this dude 'smoke heroin'?
Me too!!! I can't imagine the picture :lol:

Well, put herion in a bit of tinfoil, hold yr lighter underneath, and breathe deep.




AS to five computers, one wouldn't necessarily need five computers ALL THE TIME. Ah, the beauty of possession vs ownership.

[The Feral Underclass]

Is this thread a joke?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes.

[t_wolves_fan]

Who decides this "need"? What if I "need" 5 laptop computers? Who's going to make these for me and what will motivate them? Oh I get it, there are people out there who find assembling computers is intrinstically fun and rewarding for its own sake right?

I've asked this question several times.

The answer you usually get is that everyone will magically decide, on their own, because they all agree, that they need only one computer. Or none at all, if the workers decide not to produce them. In which case you're shit out of luck, but somehow you'll still be better off. And if you decide to produce them you are free to do so, but you may only use the materials that society "allows" you, though there will be no government body with explicit power to limit the materials available to you.

Hey, it makes sense to these folks.

:lol:

[redstar2000]

Who Will Clean the Sewers? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=17106&view=findpost&p=260401)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 05:36 PM
Who Will Clean the Sewers? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=17106&view=findpost&p=260401)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Organized rotations of labor...

Social rewards based on occupation...

Waiting lists for services/products demanded by the public...

Sounds like a government to me.

[JazzRemington]

If it were forced, probably. But rotations isn't a form of authority as the people who are in the schedule willingly volunteered to do so to get the job done. I'm not sure about the rewards, as it could lead to people only wanting to do things for rewards, nor am I sure about the waiting lists.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 06:53 PM
Sounds like a government to me.
Three bakers in a back room and a computer could be defined as a government if they had social responsability.

What's your point?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 05:53 PM
Organized rotations of labor...

Social rewards based on occupation...

Waiting lists for services/products demanded by the public...

Sounds like a government to me.
No, that sounds like organization. Organization is distinct from the best armed gang in a given area maintaining the monopoly on effective violence.
POLI202, numbskull.

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Mar 23 2005, 12:53 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Mar 23 2005, 12:53 PM)
[email protected] 23 2005, 05:36 PM
Who Will Clean the Sewers? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=17106&view=findpost&p=260401)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Organized rotations of labor...

Social rewards based on occupation...

Waiting lists for services/products demanded by the public...

Sounds like a government to me. [/b]
OK, yes this is a government. Just not a capitalist one.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

t_wolves_fan

Don't confuse goverment with organisation. By your definition, a diet is a government.

I hope you don't become a marine biologist. You could end up classifying jellyfish as cephalopods. After all, they have tentacles, don't they? Idiot.

[rice349]

There would be a government in the transitional period of socialism, which would then help society decide what job they are going to do. Again, why communists put up with retarded attempts to refute something quite scientific (compared to what the original poster thought was a legitimate refute) is beyond me...Capitalist Lawyer and T_wolves_fan aren't going to be swayed...They aren't even worth trying to re-educate with electric prods, they would be much more useful as forced labor setting an example of what is to become of the capitalists, religious zealots, reactionaries, and all counter-revolutionaries. They love the status quo, therefore, they have to be dealt with.

As far as government goes, there has to be a strong centralized totalitarian socialist government (with the intentions of transitioning society to communism) before their is actually communism.

The points which the original poster brought up would be answered during this period:

Q: Who is going to do what work?
A: Whatever work they are assigned.

Q: The 5 laptops argument..
A: With governmental seizure of all private property, after a generation or two, the public will learn that to want only what they need and nothing more.

This type of system between capitalism and communism is essential in prepping a society in which we can truly apply, "from each according to his ability, to each his own needs."

[NovelGentry]

As far as government goes, there has to be a strong centralized totalitarian socialist government (with the intentions of transitioning society to communism) before their is actually communism.

As far as government goes, there has to be something, but I'll be damned if it's that. Stop and think about what you're saying for a minute. If what you propose has to be the case, you're saying that a system of life that holds democracy, worker's liberation, and equality of all men is going to be bred from totalitarian forced labor under the hand of a state which in order to fulfill the duty you would like to see it fulfill, has to place itself far above the average worker.

I'm not sure when the idea of socializing the means of production (aka: the fundamental defining factor of socialism) ever included the idea of having it controlled by a state which places itself above society.

At the very least you would have an ultrademocratic state, where control over the means of production is held to a second degree by the people through their control of the state. At the very best you have it completely socialized, the people represent the authority, and thus hold the means of production, and by consequence that it is a part of production, the means of distribution in their hands.

[Invader Zim]

Taking a completely objective standpoint, I fail to see how Redstar's arguments were refuted. Sure the guy ripped into Redstar, but he didn't exactly provide any shocking new critique of Redstar's ideas.

[rice349]

Well as far as my views on a post-revolutionary government that is an entirely different subject; however, while i do not agree with everything Redstar2000 has to say, by no means was he refuted. Redstar2000 does an excellent job of laying out a strong, factually based argument that would prove quite difficult to refute, with the obvious philosophical and political objections based on individual point of view--but that falls more into opinion and personal preference. Again, Redstar2000 was in no means refuted by that pathetic attempt at at making a joke out of it.

[cormacobear]

Millions of tons of food are destroyed every year to maintain market prices, therefore the people producing food already can feed signifgantly larger numbers of poeple. Millions of labour saving devices have been designed but not introduced do to cost or the fact that these patents are held by wealthy corperations who would rather shelf these technologies than risk losing money from their current businesses. eg. why would an oil exec build a wind farm if scarcity drives the price of oil up. Add to all this the labour the billions without employment, and pretty quick you have a society where no one needs to work more than a couple of hours a day.

All this is currently possible if not for the gross mismanagement of the world by the wealthy capitalists.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 23 2005, 05:44 AM
Of course, when he's up against the wall, he can grumble about how I'm initiating force. Ooops. Well, I bought a bigger gun, idiot.
Well that sums up the entire "might makes right" philosophy of communism, doesn't it ?

[NovelGentry]

Well that sums up the entire "might makes right" philosophy of communism, doesn't it ?

No, we're already right. The gun is just to express that to you so it's undeniably clear.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Mar 26 2005, 09:18 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Mar 26 2005, 09:18 PM)
Virgin Molotov [email protected] 23 2005, 05:44 AM
Of course, when he's up against the wall, he can grumble about how I'm initiating force. Ooops. Well, I bought a bigger gun, idiot.
Well that sums up the entire "might makes right" philosophy of communism, doesn't it ? [/b]
Actually, the "might" sprung from capitalism, where my luck being born into riches allowed my to continue to accumulate while paying you starvation wages, then hire a massive private army ("security"? HA!) to kill you for striking.
Don't whine commie.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Just because it works on a small scale like Indian tribes and religious communes does not mean it can work on a large societal scale with millions of people.

[NovelGentry]

Just because it works on a small scale like Indian tribes and religious communes does not mean it can work on a large societal scale with millions of people.

I highly doubt it really matters to you whether it is economically feasible or not -- you have many other obvious reasons that you oppose it. So really, why should I even bother?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 09:36 PM
No, we're already right. The gun is just to express that to you so it's undeniably clear.
The third reich had a similar philosophy.

A gun is not an argument.

[Individual]

Explain to me - How forcing me upon labor, I am free from oppressive rule?

If I don't do your work, what are you going to do?

Shoot me?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 09:34 AM
If I don't do your work, what are you going to do?

Shoot me?

If the tragic history of communism is anything to go by, more than likely.

[NovelGentry]

A gun is not an argument.

Obviously, as my thesis is BANG, and your response is <insert death grumble>

-- you need to have a laugh every now and then.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 10:15 AM

A gun is not an argument.

Obviously, as my thesis is BANG, and your response is <insert death grumble>

-- you need to have a laugh every now and then.
This isn&#39;t remotely funny. I take this issue with deadly seriousness. Politics, particularly the realm of force, isn&#39;t a game.

[NovelGentry]

This isn&#39;t remotely funny. I take this issue with deadly seriousness. Politics, particularly the realm of force, isn&#39;t a game.

Well lighten up, the revolution isn&#39;t on yet, so you&#39;ve still got some time before we have our conversation.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 09:34 AM
Explain to me - How forcing me upon labor, I am free from oppressive rule?

If I don&#39;t do your work, what are you going to do?

Shoot me?
Not quite. Historically the commies shoot you then put you into a secret mass grave.

[Individual]

Explain to me - How forcing me upon labor, I am free from oppressive rule?

If I don&#39;t do your work, what are you going to do?

Shoot me?

[NovelGentry]

Explain to me - How forcing me upon labor, I am free from oppressive rule?

If I don&#39;t do your work, what are you going to do?

Shoot me?

I don&#39;t force you into shit. Wake up and smell the coffee, you&#39;re forced into labor right now if you&#39;re working class.

You are obligated to do labor in socialism, because if by chance you didn&#39;t, you would not survive. The only force necessary to be used on the bourgeoisie is the same force they currently use on the working class -- unless of course they actually physically oppose, that is to say, if they tried to "strike" violently -- AHAHAHA... imagine that, the bourgeoisie on strike.

You will admit this type of labor is force under socialism/communism, but will not admit that it is force under capitalism?

[Karl]

Who decides this "need"? What if I "need" 5 laptop computers? Who&#39;s going to make these for me and what will motivate them? Oh I get it, there are people out there who find assembling computers is intrinstically fun and rewarding for its own sake right?



I&#39;ve asked this question several times.

The answer you usually get is that everyone will magically decide, on their own, because they all agree, that they need only one computer. Or none at all, if the workers decide not to produce them. In which case you&#39;re shit out of luck, but somehow you&#39;ll still be better off. And if you decide to produce them you are free to do so, but you may only use the materials that society "allows" you, though there will be no government body with explicit power to limit the materials available to you.

Hey, it makes sense to these folks. -t_wolves_fan

So basically youve come up with another "what if" situation. I think its a general strategy of yours to come up with as many of these post revolution situations and contradict everyone even if they come up with a intellectual answer or not. so im sure youll have something interesting to quote me on or say but honestly these "what if" and "if then" statements you keep bringing up are getting old. When somone even attempts to answer you with a compitent solution you of course naysay or come up with some dry sarcastic reply.

About the possible lack of manpower to do the labor necessery to make your laptops, you are trying to point out the fact that they would be forced to manufacture them and that they of course would have no desire to sit on a production line putting the pentium 4 sticker on your computer. you are correct, however i dont see the difference between that situation and our current one, wage slavery. Like novel gentry said people are forced into shit jobs right now, do you have a magical plan we should hear of?

[waltersm]

yeah, redstar has some good points, dis you really expect to find support for your ideas on REVOLUTIONARYLEFT.com