not really leftist...is that OK here?

[what2do]

I'm partial to repuplicanism or representative government. Communism, socialism, pure democracy, etc. don't appeal to me. What qualities do they posess which lead you to regard them so highly?

[anomaly]

Well, I'm from the lower class, so obviously capitalism doesn't appeal to me. Also, after reading Marx and others, it seems to me that capitalism is just an illogical form of economic structure. Communism eliminates exploitation completely and ensures real freedom.

Have you heard of demarchy? While representative, that government is a possibility for communism. Applied in communism, the demarchic government would be subordinate to the people.

However, I favor direct democracy. I think it allows the people to have a voice moreso than any representational system.

Of course, I understand that it may not always be practical, which is why I've suggested demarchy as an alternative.

If you're not a leftist, you'll probably be restricted. This message board is leftist-only discussion. Are you a Republican or something?

[what2do]

not a republican...not really anything, but I've studied government theory all my life on a personal basis, and favor representative gvmnt. Tell me about demarchy if u would be so kind.

[anomaly]

Redstar2000 wrote a bit about it, and I think his analysis is very good. So here it is.

Demarchy (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083345239&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[Nicky Scarfo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 01:08 AM
not a republican...not really anything, but I've studied government theory all my life on a personal basis, and favor representative gvmnt. Tell me about demarchy if u would be so kind.
Hate to break it to you, but anomaly is right, you'll likely be restricted to posting in Opposing Ideologies if you are not an avowed socialist/leftist/whatnot. That's cause, from my understanding, this site wants to keep the debate in most of the forums between socialists, and thus maintain the socialist character of the board. So that's why they created the Opposing Ideologies forum and Restricted Membership. You should check the RevLeft Guidelines.

[anomaly]

Well if he's 'not much of anything', there's no reason to restrict him.

Not unless he turns overtly capitalist or something.

[what2do]

Thanks Anomaly. Just read the redstar2000 post on demarchy. My immediate concerns with demarchy are:
1) lack of consistency in government procedures would make a demarchic system weak.
2) dissatisfaction of populace concerning government procedures may insight rebellion in wich case the powerless goverment would stand no chance.
3) if the current government groups did hold power to respond with military force to rebellion, invasion, etc., the natural tendacies of human beings would lead these current groups to gather what power they did not have to themselves and be away with the demarchic system. i.e., there is no way to ensure a prolonged demarchic system.
4) the overturn for officials is so great/fast that officials are not held responsible for their actions.
please reply. Also, tell me about direct democracy and your liking of it.
P.S. - I'm 100% new to chat rooms. Is this the correct place to "chat." please instruct me.

[what2do]

Just read "nicky scarfo." sorry -- I feel like I'm intruding, but I just like to learn and share viewpoints, etc. If I should leave I will.

[LSD]

What2do, you are in no way "intruding"; this is a public message board. As a self-avowed "republican", however you are restricted to posting only in the Opposing Ideologies forum.

Should your opinions change in the future, we will reconsider your member status. Until then you are perfectly free to participate in all discussions in OI, as well as in the Religion sub-forum.

Also, please familiarize yourself with the RevLeft Guidelines (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=boardrules).

[anomaly]

Originally posted by what2do
1) lack of consistency in government procedures would make a demarchic system weak.
Any demarchic government is not intended to be strong. The decisions made would probably be of far less important than those made today. Remember, communist society will be very different from capitalist, and it probably won't be needed near as much to 'regulate' people's lives.


2) dissatisfaction of populace concerning government procedures may insight rebellion in wich case the powerless goverment would stand no chance.
All demarchic representatives would be recallable at any time for any reason by a majority vote.


there is no way to ensure a prolonged demarchic system.
If any commune is 'attacked', it should not be the role of the government to ensure an 'common defense'. Rather, people's militias or something similar should be established.


4) the overturn for officials is so great/fast that officials are not held responsible for their actions.
Sure they are. That's the point of making them recallable.

Also, I wouldn't call them 'officials'. Remember, they are subordinate to the people, not the other way around.


Also, tell me about direct democracy and your liking of it.
Not really much to say. I don't know what the size of a commune would be, but if it is not too high, direct democracy seems to be the system that most greatly empowers the people. It is self-government. No 'officials' or 'power figures'.

[what2do]

Thanks 4 the info, anomaly. I was looking from the wrong vantage point, but I think I'm catching on now - power is held more completely by the people but with subordinates of the people chosen by lottery. I especially appreciated your last comment. I pose this concern: its inferentially assumed that populations will disagree on subjects -- even to the point of violence. How do you make certain that this is not so without some recognized authoritative body that officiates in justice?

[anomaly]

its inferentially assumed that populations will disagree on subjects -- even to the point of violence
With the elimination of class society, however, I think violence will drop dramatically.

And the addition of some authoritarian body would probably lead to more violence than would otherwise be seen.

In short, I think that if any violence surfaces amongst the people, then the people can 'regulate' the people.

[overlord]

Well, I'm from the lower class, so obviously capitalism doesn't appeal to me

What's wrong with capitalism? You're not 'lower' class. The poor have never had it so good as under Western capitalism. Today's 'Lower' class live better than Medieval/Renaisance KINGS! Think of that, better than... a KING!

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 12:51 PM
The poor have never had it so good as under Western capitalism. Today's 'Lower' class live better than Medieval/Renaisance KINGS!
Are you working class, overlord? Are you a Medieval King? And if you are neither, how do you know what it is to be either?

I don't suppose I'm what you'd call working class either, you know, but at least I refrain from making misinformed generalisations about how great it is to be "poor" these days.

[RevMARKSman]

The poor of today may have access to slightly more resources than the poor of the Middle Ages. But remember that it's the same for the rich. Notice that while there are people begging on the streets for their next meal, there are people with private jets and $400 million retirement packages. They may give $40 million to charity, but they've still got $360 million that could be used to help those in need.

Also, what motivates people in capitalism? What spurs on the economy?
It's greed--the desire to have more money than someone else--the desire to live better than anyone else.

In communism, what makes it go is the desire to better society and the world--to have a social interest, not a vested interest.



Would you rather have a thriving capitalist economy or a flourishing communist one?

Your answer says a lot about the kind of person you are.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by overlord
What's wrong with capitalism? You're not 'lower' class. The poor have never had it so good as under Western capitalism. Today's 'Lower' class live better than Medieval/Renaisance KINGS!
If you're not lower class, then this is merely your own ignorance.

If you are lower class, I don't know why you would support an exploitive system.

But today's lower class surely does not live better than kings. If that were true, I'd surely have many 'servants' and my own special group of artists to paint me whatever I wanted.

Today's lower class lives just like they always have: only through wage-slavery. If one is not a wage-slave, one does not live (at least not in any way worth living).

But, I suppose that's fine and dandy for you. :lol:

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:51 AM
The poor have never had it so good as under Western capitalism.
[Emphasis mine]

You are wrong.

Go to Africa and I'm sure they will tell you that they absolutely adore Western Capitalism and can't wait for more white foreigners to exploit their labor and natural resources.

I'm also sure that the reason there have been revolutionary movements all throughout the world in countries like Nepal, Cuba, Venezuela, Chile..et cetera is because they just wanted more western capitalist intervention...not liberation!

Furthermore, the people in Cuba have never had "it so good" as they do under Castro. Does this mean you support Castro? Quality of life has substantially increased in Venezuela in the last few years with Chavez being elected to the presidency. Are you a fan of Chavez now? Or does this argument only work when it goes to benefit the "right" view of things.?

Finally, if the poor have it "good" under capitalism (better than feudalism), then Historical Materialism dictates that they will have it even better under socialism! It's called social progression! ;)

[cyu]

What qualities do they posess which lead you to regard them so highly?

There are people who work long and hard in multiple jobs, much more than just 40 hours, 5 days a week, and yet they still live paycheck to paycheck, barely able to save any money for a time when they're too old to be doing much at all. With all this great technology we have compared with a hundred years ago, you'd think life would be much easier for everyone. Yet it is not. Something must be wrong with the system. Some people fail to see a problem with the system (you'll probably find many in the Opposing Ideologies forum), and if you're one of those, there isn't much hope for you. But if you do think something must be wrong, then you've taken your first steps.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by overlord
Today's 'Lower' class live better than Medieval/Renaissance KINGS!

They probably live somewhat longer. There's much to be said for modern sanitation.

But I know of no poor people with an army of mounted knights to defend them, a private collection of dwarves to amuse them, a horde of servants to pamper them, musicians to play for them, painters to paint them, even a "hired hand" to read and write for them, etc.

By all accounts, kings lived pretty good back in those days...unless they were poisoned or lost a serious war.

:lol:

Given the choice, I rather think most poor people these days would accept the throne. :)

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

[comet_rider]

hi, this is my first post.

i guess i'm not a strict marxist, as i combine humanism and communism to think of the problems of capitalism not in an economic nature, but more of a humanist one.

i was actually not "drawn" to communism, so to speak. I studied the humanities on my own (the school system doesn't offer any courses in humanities until gr.11) and came up with my own view before i discovered that my ideas are similiar to communism.

i think the main problem of capitalism is that it promotes idolatry, alienation (of mankind from himself), objectification, and essentially destroys the active human powers, such as to love, to know, etc.

In the capitalist society, the meaning of life is to drive the economic machine forward. Each person becomes a mere atom in the never-ending drive of capital accumulation, his (i'm using masculine for the sake of convinience) life is a mere investment. Basically, the concept of capitalism is "I AM WHAT I HAVE".

Knowledge, for example, can't really be possessed. The noun only refers to the ability to engage in the active prossess of "knowing". The same goes for love. In capitalism, however, everything must be possessed, because one's worth is determined solely by his economic status. Capitalism not only brings economic changes, it also brings changes to our desires, needs, moral believes, religious faith, and essentially the meaning of life itself. Most marriages in capitalism, for example, are not truly a "marriage", it is merely a shared ownership of properties (including kids, because in capitalism, everything is converted into commodities, even life itself), merely another corporation.

My explaination is probably not very clear... it&#39;s 11:00pm and i&#39;m tired >< and it will take a loooong time to explain fully the effects of capitalism. But to give a general outline - many reject communism as an impossible ideal because they are thinking with the mind of a capitalist: that maximum production and maximum consumption to the degree of which communism offers can never be proportional. But a truly communistic society is humanistic, it is not programmed and driven by the principle of maximum production, maximum consumption, and minimum friction. In fact, communism is not merely an economical system. Its final goal is not to reshape the economy, but rather to rebuild the disintegrating humanistic nature of our selves. The idea that possession is a primary drive of humans is itself a bourgeois idea. Our greed for material possessions, money, power, etc. is not a built-in instinct. It is not human nature. It is actually a product of the decaying capitalist society.

Asides from the somewhat lofty humanist ideas, communism is appealing because it actually allows much more individuality than capitalism while keeping away from exploitation (this involves a change in the value of individual existence from the presently dominant bourgois ones to the more humanist ones), and it is in fact the ultimate democracy.

I believe humanism and communism go hand-in-hand - they would both win or lose against capitalism, they&#39;re on the same side. Capitalism itself can never win, because it will either evolve into communism, or it will go on and destroy the entire human race.

I founded IHCL (internationalist humanistic communist league) in canada. Better explainations can be found in our publications. Send me an email if anyone want copies. IHCL is actually very young and still trying to piece things together, i&#39;m still waiting for a reply from the young communist league of canada about cooperating and stuff, and i can use a website. If anyone would like to help it&#39;ll be appreciated.

well wat do u kno it&#39;s 11:15 have to go to bed. :P

o and on the working class&#092;king issue, i think it&#39;s not a matter of moving classes around on the ladder of exploitation, but eliminating the concept of class and exploitation themselves.

[overlord]

Hi guys, i&#39;ll try to answer everthing.



Are you working class, overlord? Are you a Medieval King? And if you are neither, how do you know what it is to be either?

Sometimes I wish I was a medieval king. Having studied Medieval history, and contrasting it with the fact I seem to be surrounded by modern comforts created by capitalism, I conclude living in the 21st century as an every-day person is infinitely preferable to the highest standards achievable in the middle age. Even by the renaisance, capitalism had improved people&#39;s lives to the extent that nobles grumbled that even the lowly merchants seemed to dress and live in better comfort than the kings of only a century earlier.


I don&#39;t suppose I&#39;m what you&#39;d call working class either, you know, but at least I refrain from making misinformed generalisations about how great it is to be "poor" these days.

Being poor is not good, but I guaranatee communism will make you poorer as there will no longer be any rich to tax.


Notice that while there are people begging on the streets for their next meal, there are people with private jets and &#036;400 million retirement packages. They may give &#036;40 million to charity, but they&#39;ve still got &#036;360 million that could be used to help those in need.

There was a recent study which found that once people achieve around a middle-class level of income, they do not become significantly happier. If you win the lotto, you will become happier for around a year, but afterwhich return to your previous level of happyness. If you don&#39;t spend all your money, you will actually become unhappier than before you won for various entropic reasons which I won&#39;t discuss here. The bottom line is that people remember usually the positive elements of their experiences and the negative elements of their possessions. It is for this reason I personally feel sorry for anyone with more &#036;2,000,000, unless its just a house and nothing else. Ever seen anyone in a Mercedes or BMW without an unhappily frustrated expression on their face? Its kind of a stereotype. As for begging on the street for their next meal, it&#39;s possible to get free unopened food out of almost any bin in a country which has been capitalist for at least several generations. If this is not to their refined lower class pallete, beggars can in fact be choosers and receive food vouchers from any of the hundreds of church charities catering to them. The trickle-down effect is so enormous that here, (in Australia), it is estimated that professional beggers can make up to &#036;800 per week.



Also, what motivates people in capitalism? What spurs on the economy?
It&#39;s greed--the desire to have more money than someone else--the desire to live better than anyone else.

That&#39;s right, greed. I imagine this should stimulate people in all political systems as it is a fundumental facet of what it means to be an organism whose phylogeny has been exposed to evolutionary pressures.



In communism, what makes it go is the desire to better society and the world--to have a social interest, not a vested interest.

And what mechanism is in place to stop the inevitable unwilling participents reverting to greed? Violence? Is this a better society?



Would you rather have a thriving capitalist economy or a flourishing communist one?

If a communist economy has no greed it will have no growth. How can it flourish? Capitalist economies both flourish and thrive.


Your answer says a lot about the kind of person you are.

There is only one kind of person. This is a communist teaching.




But today&#39;s lower class surely does not live better than kings. If that were true, I&#39;d surely have many &#39;servants&#39; and my own special group of artists to paint me whatever I wanted.

You don&#39;t have to attend endless social functions filled with meaningless ritual for a start. Don&#39;t you think young princes and princess fantacise about being just an ordinary person? The grass is always greener....



Today&#39;s lower class lives just like they always have: only through wage-slavery. If one is not a wage-slave, one does not live (at least not in any way worth living).

If you want to have this well go right ahead, capitalism is the only system where no-one will hold you back. Truly believe in yourself and you can only succeed.




Go to Africa and I&#39;m sure they will tell you that they absolutely adore Western Capitalism and can&#39;t wait for more white foreigners to exploit their labor and natural resources.

Are you kidding me? :o Various war-torn African nations have set up commisions begging for foreign mining investment to supplement thier treasuries with mining royalties and provide employment for their highly unemployed populace. The largest mining concerns, BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto have close to ZERO mining investment in Africa due to their endless civil wars, corrupt regimes and geographical remotness which make such investment unprofitable. Frankly they&#39;re not interested. There has been some recent success with petty concerns in the fields of iron ore and uranium, but the results are 50/50 and certianly not worth the gamble. As for pure labor exploitation, there might be some of that in Egypt, but basically Africa is a strictly no-go-zone for corporations.



I&#39;m also sure that the reason there have been revolutionary movements all throughout the world in countries like Nepal, Cuba, Venezuela, Chile..et cetera is because they just wanted more western capitalist intervention...not liberation&#33;

They were sick of being dirt poor and were greedy for perceived wealth of those who lived above them. Now is this a communist or capitalist attitude?



Furthermore, the people in Cuba have never had "it so good" as they do under Castro. Does this mean you support Castro? Quality of life has substantially increased in Venezuela in the last few years with Chavez being elected to the presidency. Are you a fan of Chavez now? Or does this argument only work when it goes to benefit the "right" view of things.?

If I was younger, I would have said &#39;yes&#39;. Whatever discrepancies in wealth between Cubans has long since been adressed however. Zero economic growth since that time however means Cuba is still living in the 50&#39;s when the capitalist world lives in the 2000&#39;s. Where do you think the Cubans would rather be? As for Chavez, I definitely admire his courage and tenacity in standing up to the US. Let&#39;s see how enthusiastic his people are in 40 years however when he is still the dictator, people are still dirt poor, and the people decide they would like a change of government.


Finally, if the poor have it "good" under capitalism (better than feudalism), then Historical Materialism dictates that they will have it even better under socialism&#33; It&#39;s called social progression

If this were true social progression has met its perfection as all advanced capitalist countries are already packed with socialist policies.




They probably live somewhat longer. There&#39;s much to be said for modern sanitation.

But I know of no poor people with an army of mounted knights to defend them, a private collection of dwarves to amuse them, a horde of servants to pamper them, musicians to play for them, painters to paint them, even a "hired hand" to read and write for them, etc.

By all accounts, kings lived pretty good back in those days...unless they were poisoned or lost a serious war.

Given the choice, I rather think most poor people these days would accept the throne.


I wouldn&#39;t mind living like a king either, and I will&#33;&#33;&#33;

[RevMARKSman]

If a communist economy has no greed it will have no growth.


Uhh...sure. Especially when people decide to research and make new technology and share it with the rest of society.
If you&#39;d understand that no one person was ordained supreme ruler of the world, to have a higher standard of living than everyone else, you wouldn&#39;t be restricted.


There is only one kind of person. This is a communist teaching.

No. We teach that all people are equal. They may have different faiths, different skin color, different gender, different thoughts, but they still have the same rights--the right to have their needs met, the right to have the same standard of living as everyone else.


If this were true social progression has met its perfection as all advanced capitalist countries are already packed with socialist policies.


The only places that have, or have had socialism within the last 1000 years are Cuba and Paris, France. Socialism is a step on the way to communism.



And what mechanism is in place to stop the inevitable unwilling participents reverting to greed? Violence? Is this a better society?

First, we try to teach them that there are other people in the world who are equal and all deserve an equal share of technology and basic needs. If they won&#39;t be convinced at all, we will forcibly take their possessions and divide them equally among all the people, including the offender.



I wouldn&#39;t mind living like a king either, and I will&#33;&#33;&#33;

Yes, and so will we all--except minus the wage slaves. We&#39;re all equal--remember?



Being poor is not good, but I guaranatee communism will make you poorer as there will no longer be any rich to tax.

If we eliminate MONEY from the picture, taxes won&#39;t exist. In true communism (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/ryw5b.html), everyone contributes to society as a collective, and the collective is distributed equally.



That enough for you? If not, redstar will come in and give you some more.


:che:

[Tungsten]

MonicaTTmed

First, we try to teach them that there are other people in the world who are equal and all deserve an equal share of technology and basic needs.
Who&#39;s going to be proving this technology?

If they won&#39;t be convinced at all, we will forcibly take their possessions and divide them equally among all the people, including the offender.
You&#39;ll take possessions from people in the western world and give them to people who don&#39;t have them? Do you actually have any statictics as to how much everyone will need to give in order to achieve this (assuming you can achieve this at all)? Not to mention that forcing people to do this would be exploitation on a massive scale and I can&#39;t imagine it being tolerated by anyone- rich or poor. That would make you the offender.

[RevMARKSman]

I&#39;m talking about what would happen once communism has already been established.


You&#39;ll take possessions from people in the western world and give them to people who don&#39;t have them?

If someone decides to hoard everything they make, and take from the collective and not give back, we would either distribute their possessions among everyone (INCLUDING THE OFFENDER) or keep them from taking from the collective. Excluding people from the collective would result in a class society, which is one thing that communism is NOT. Hoarding is also exploitation on a massive scale as that is what capitalism is all about--getting things into your pocket and keeping them there.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by overlord
I wouldn&#39;t mind living like a king either, and I will&#33;&#33;&#33;

:lol:

There&#39;s an important invention for dealing with kings that you would be well advised to suppress upon your coronation...it&#39;s called the guillotine.

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

[Tungsten]

MonicaTTmed

I&#39;m talking about what would happen once communism has already been established.
It doesn&#39;t matter.

If someone decides to hoard everything they make, and take from the collective and not give back,
You mean if I cut down a tree and sell the wood without sharing it equally among all six billion people on earth then I&#39;ve comitted an offence? What did the other 5999999999 people do to earn their share?

Who&#39;s exploiting who here?

we would either distribute their possessions among everyone (INCLUDING THE OFFENDER) or keep them from taking from the collective.
I wouldn&#39;t be taking from them, they&#39;d be taking from me. It doesn&#39;t take an entire continent to cut down a damn tree, does it?

[RevMARKSman]

What did the other 5999999999 people do to earn their share?

Nothing, but there are those who would cut down the tree but can&#39;t physically, don&#39;t have access to a tree, etc.


without sharing it equally among all six billion people on earth

You don&#39;t have to distribute it yourself, you just have to give it to the collective.

If you&#39;re going to act all individualist, as though the other people in the world don&#39;t deserve anything simply because you reaped the end result, then don&#39;t expect any mercy from the revolutionaries.

I can see why you&#39;re restricted.

[Tungsten]

MonicaTTmed

Nothing, but there are those who would cut down the tree but can&#39;t physically, don&#39;t have access to a tree, etc.
Why does that give them a right to my tree or my ability to cut it down (with or without my consent)?

You don&#39;t have to distribute it yourself, you just have to give it to the collective.
Why?

If you&#39;re going to act all individualist, as though the other people in the world don&#39;t deserve anything simply because you reaped the end result,
They don&#39;t deserve anything because they didn&#39;t provide any part in creating the result.

then don&#39;t expect any mercy from the revolutionaries.
:lol:

[RevMARKSman]

Why does that give them a right to my tree or my ability to cut it down (with or without my consent)?

They don&#39;t deserve anything because they didn&#39;t provide any part in creating the result.

These are the same people who hunt, pick, gather, and cook the food you eat. Don&#39;t they deserve something for that?

Why?
Because this isn&#39;t about individual property. Greed for individual property ALWAYS ends up in exploitation and deception.


:lol:


Two can play at this game.

:lol:
^
|
|
|
See that?

I rest my case.
:che:

[overlord]

QUOTE
I wouldn&#39;t mind living like a king either, and I will&#33;&#33;&#33;



Yes, and so will we all--except minus the wage slaves. We&#39;re all equal--remember?


And under communism we&#39;ll all no doubt work as equal wage slaves. I assume communism is not the get-out-of-work ticket many impressionable young socialists fighting the corporate machine think it is.



QUOTE (overlord)
I wouldn&#39;t mind living like a king either, and I will&#33;&#33;&#33;





There&#39;s an important invention for dealing with kings that you would be well advised to suppress upon your coronation...it&#39;s called the guillotine.



:o :o :o What about billionaires? One day I WILL be a billionaire. Surely they&#39;re not as detested as the parasitic monarchs are by you chaps?

[Tungsten]

MonicaTTmed

These are the same people who hunt, pick, gather, and cook the food you eat. Don&#39;t they deserve something for that?
What? All six billion of them? I don&#39;t think so. The ones that took part in these roles have been paid for it. Those who didn&#39;t, didn&#39;t.

Because this isn&#39;t about individual property.
But it is.

Greed for individual property ALWAYS ends up in exploitation and deception.
Why don&#39;t you prove it?

I rest my case.
What case?

[RevMARKSman]

I ask you two questions...

1. Are you normally the person who reads the required reading cover to cover, or just skims a bit?

2. Did you read the part of the article on true communism that stated very clearly that there would be no money?

THEREFORE, whatever you do will be distributed to (and benefit) all of society, as will the work of everyone else.

Say there is a hunter, a cook, a gardener/farmer, and an electrician in a community (don&#39;t nitpick because this is very simplified, there would be thousands of different jobs and this would be on a larger scale in a normal community).

The hunter hunts enough meat for the four people, the farmer grows enough crops for the four, the cook turns the raw materials into food for the four, and the electrician wires electricity to the houses of each of the four. Everybody ends up getting food and electricity.

In a true communist society, people are motivated by society moving forward, rather than themselves alone.

[hassan monwar al-moudjahid]

why are there banned and restricted members on this site?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by hassan monwar al&#045;[email protected] 24 2006, 06:43 PM
why are there banned and restricted members on this site?
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=SR&f=8

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

[RedAnarchist]

I&#39;ve answered these questions in another thread HMAM, but not as well as that link can.

[what2do]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 02:44 PM
If someone decides to hoard everything they make, and take from the collective and not give back, we would either distribute their possessions among everyone (INCLUDING THE OFFENDER) or keep them from taking from the collective.

Is this plausible? Do you think this a true reflection upon reality, or that such results as were desired to be affected from such action would truly come to bear? Think upon a situation where the people in general hold some enjoyment of equality. Good foresight would have us admit that some desire to hoard would arise amongst the people. It is your assertion that this desire would be retarded by punishment and retribution (assumedly meted out at the hands of the populace - for if not so, it needs be meted out at the hands of some special group elevated in authority and means above his fellows) - and true it is; but retardation is far from cessation. This desire would endure, and let us in a spirit of clear reasoning assume that it would find a way to bear fruit after its intention -- the accumulation of wealth greater in proportion to that of the populace. Can you deny it?&#33; "Let experience, the least fallible guide of human opinions, be appealed to for an answer to these inquiries" (Alexander Hamilton). As Rosepierre touted equality among men, he found excuse not to diminish the aggrandizement of himself in the people&#39;s eyes. Thus it always is. Great personalities will by the law of probability be coupled with pride and susceptibility to fits pique. Scheming men will and do exist. Secrets will be made and kept against the welfare of the populace. Pacts and evil covenants will be entered into to get gain. Do you suppose that the people, often engaged in things of import only to themselves, and prone to indifference, can always avoid playing the dupe? History answers with a resounding NO&#33; To the contrary, they may retain their equality for a time, but without something to ensure it, eventually their ideal will be lost at the hands of masterful and evil men. I do not mean to entertain the negative, often pro-capitalist sentiment that "all men are in nature evil and our only hope is to take advantage of this", and I enjoy the faith that some communists place in humanity. But IT IS FOOLISH TO ASSUME THAT ALL MEN ARE AND WILL BE GOOD, AND THEREBY LEAVE YOURSELF VULNERABLE TO THE EVILS OF FALLABLE MAN. This is the great defect of communism - trust without collateral, faith without assurance. At the first of this discussion, I expressed my faith in representative government. I will soon explain the assurances and evidences upon which that faith is grounded when I have more time.