Am I a communist?

[overlord]

Yeah, i was just looking through that venerable ideologue redstar's papers and finally came across something even a stupid cappie like me could understand. Its his brief definition of communism (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&). anyway, IT SOUNDS LIKE LIBERTARIANISM!!!! :o

So i thought i'd go through it point by point here if that's ok to see if i'm a commie or if you guys are libertarians...


What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003 by RedStar2000


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

same with libertarianism, no class, no state. each person is a sovereign individual.



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.

no government, check. i suppose people could freely choose to set up redstar's system if they so wished it under libertarianism.


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

no nation states under libertarianism either. nations suck. we should have unlimited freedom of movement.


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

:huh: not quite sure what the difference is. must be the 'spirit of it' that counts. but under libertarianism you can do what you like so why not.



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.

if a nation state ceases to exist under libertarianism, money might cease also. different businesses/groups will not doubt be quick to print their own stuff. since you're a soverign individual no-one says you have to use it though. It seems yours is a barter economy.


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

i'm sure everyone will 'need' from the public total which will be very little if everyone is taking. either that or you need a beurocracy :o . this is why communist countries have nothing on shelves no doubt.


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 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.

under libertarianism you can work where-ever you please, for however long you like, when you like. check.


The social life of a communist society will be extraordinally libertarian; very few of the taboos and 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.

no taboos under capitalism either as no government to tell you what to do. check.


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

sounds like capitalism :rolleyes: .check.


The most utterly detested 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.

if capitalism is disgustingly inhumane why did you buy that computer mister voodoo?


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

they are turning in their graves. ;)


Since such a social order has 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 must be done and must be avoided to successfully manage the transition from capitalism to communism...although there are 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.

Let's just stop paying tax, eradicate our government and live as libertarians. then let the people choose what they wanna do, huh? eventually we're going to have to leave people alone if we indeed have no government.

Well, there it is people. So can I be one of the gang? :)

[encephalon]

Actually, if you actually read some of the stuff instead of have a kneejerk reaction, you'll find that the american "libertarian" and anarchists have much in common except for the deification of capitalism. (and communists have the same goal as anarchists; they differ in evaluation and methodology). What you fail to realize is that capitalism is based upon exploitation--and there is no freedom in exploitation.

[Dean]

Communists are the real libertarians.

Communism recognizes class differences in regard to freedom.
They recognize that immediate anarchy is bound to create more strife than it fixes.
Some libertarians believe in things like controlled borders, imperialist wars and the like. They believe in corporate power to create and maintain social order by way of corporate police orders. The believe in alienation and competition and inequality as motivators - basically in the supremacy of the unfettered, all - encompassing market.
As Noam Chomsky described it, it is the "worst kind of tyranny imaginable."

[Enragé]

overlord, this is all quite obvious.

try to resist the urge to see images of Stalin and the Red Army slaughtering peasants next time you hear the word "communism".

who the hell do you think planted those images there?

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:24 AM
same with libertarianism, no class, no state. each person is a sovereign individual.
Capitalist "libertarianism" definately has a class structure. Capitalism is built on the concept that there IS a class structure. "Classless" libertarianism is libertarian socialism, at least, of some sort.

[Tungsten]

Dean

Some libertarians believe in things like controlled borders, imperialist wars and the like. They believe in corporate power to create and maintain social order by way of corporate police orders.
Can you point to any of these supposed libertarians? The only time controlled borders or wars could be justified would be in self-defence, and I think most libertarians believe that some form of centralised government is necessary, even if only to defend the nation and dispense justice. Most of us are minarchists, not anarchists.

The believe in alienation and competition and inequality as motivators - basically in the supremacy of the unfettered, all - encompassing market.
As Noam Chomsky described it, it is the "worst kind of tyranny imaginable."
What a phony advocate of freedom you are. You see people trading without rules or regulations and you feel threated by it.

[amanondeathrow]

same with libertarianism, no class, no state. each person is a sovereign individual.

Libertarianism, of the capitalist brand, does indeed have a class structure.

The ability to exploit labor from others inevitably leads to economic superiority, which is the basis for a class society.

Class cannot be prevented unless goods are collectively owned.



no nation states under libertarianism either. nations suck. we should have unlimited freedom of movement.

Nations are only a burden to a capitalist when they attempt to regulate their exploitation and hurt their profits.

A capitalist economy will result in an oppressive political system. It can take many forms, but capitalism will not function properly without it.


not quite sure what the difference is. must be the 'spirit of it' that counts. but under libertarianism you can do what you like so why not.

People cannot "do what they want" if someone else is benefiting from their labor.

How does someone not have power over others in this kind of system?


different businesses/groups will not doubt be quick to print their own stuff. since you're a soverign individual no-one says you have to use it though.


Then these sovereign corporations will develop into state like groups called "nations" and your little pipe dream will be over.


It seems yours is a barter economy.

Absolutely false. There’s no property in a communist society, therefore goods are distributed to those who need them and nothing is given in return for profit.


i'm sure everyone will 'need' from the public total which will be very little if everyone is taking. either that or you need a beurocracy ohmy.gif . this is why communist countries have nothing on shelves no doubt.

People will be inclined to work because they will be working for themselves and their community.

Concepts such as greed or selfishness will wither away, reflecting the equality of the economy.


under libertarianism you can work where-ever you please, for however long you like, when you like. check.

Unless you don't want to starve, in which case you will work for as long as your employer demands or you can find yourself another job in the competitive market. But remember your not being exploited.


sounds like capitalism rolleyes.gif .check.

Yes, because CEO and movie stars are the hardest workers who do the most for society :rolleyes:


if capitalism is disgustingly inhumane why did you buy that computer mister voodoo?

So because we reject capitalism we should go live in the woods for the rest of our lives?


they are turning in their graves. wink.gif

Actually if you took the time to read any Marxist writings you would agree with RedStar’s description as a pretty accurate reflection of Marx and Engle's vision.


Let's just stop paying tax, eradicate our government and live as libertarians. then let the people choose what they wanna do, huh? eventually we're going to have to leave people alone if we indeed have no government.

Well, there it is people. So can I be one of the gang? smile.gif

If you were actually devoted to those goals then by all means you could join. But because you fail to see the incompatibility of freedom and capitalism, you are restricted to OI.

[Hegemonicretribution]

It is good to see that you are more on the same page than you were previously with regards to what most of us are actually talking about.

As others have said it is freedom also from the class structures imposed upon us by capitalism that we see as the problem over and and above what you agree with that we see as the problem. Wth ownership ad inheritance comes problems of class replication and very unequal starting points in life over and above the abilities we are born with that cause problems.

This is the main difference between libertarian communism and capitalism.

It isn't about abolishing the freedom to "own" it is the destruction of a concept that is not compatible with the other freedoms...

Do you advocate the freedom to rape and murder? Or that you would prefer that these practices that reduce freedom stop? Well it is the same with accumulation of capital.

The reason "revolution" comes into it is because those that benifit from the exploitation involved in capitalism control many of the agencies of change and will not freely give up this power and influence.

[Tungsten]

Hegemonicretribution

Do you advocate the freedom to rape and murder? Or that you would prefer that these practices that reduce freedom stop? Well it is the same with accumulation of capital.
I'll sell you this thing, that I want to sell and you'll give me that thing that you want to sell in exchange for it. Take it, leave it, or make me an offer. (The "thing" could be anything from money to labour to goods.)

How is this reducing freedom? Do you consider it equal to rape and murder?
The reason "revolution" comes into it is because those that benifit from the exploitation involved in capitalism control many of the agencies of change and will not freely give up this power and influence.
Is the exchange I mentioned above an example of exploitation? How absurd.

[Zingu]

Wait, you haven't realized that this is what support all this time overlord? :lol:

You're were just assuming what our ideas and aspirations are? At least you finally learned something.

[overlord]

overlord, this is all quite obvious.

not to me it isn't. i don't see how people can be free and yet forbidden to engage in certain activities.


(overlord @ May 15 2006, 05:24 AM)
same with libertarianism, no class, no state. each person is a sovereign individual.


Capitalist "libertarianism" definately has a class structure. Capitalism is built on the concept that there IS a class structure. "Classless" libertarianism is libertarian socialism, at least, of some sort.

I've considered myself a left libertarian for a while now. I didn't realise you guys thought of yourselves the same way.



same with libertarianism, no class, no state. each person is a sovereign individual.



Libertarianism, of the capitalist brand, does indeed have a class structure.

The ability to exploit labor from others inevitably leads to economic superiority, which is the basis for a class society.

Class cannot be prevented unless goods are collectively owned.

Actually i agree. libertarianism will tend to feudalism.



not quite sure what the difference is. must be the 'spirit of it' that counts. but under libertarianism you can do what you like so why not.



People cannot "do what they want" if someone else is benefiting from their labor.

How does someone not have power over others in this kind of system?

They can. my libertarianism will tend to power groups. But how come yours won't without big government?


Concepts such as greed or selfishness will wither away, reflecting the equality of the economy.


If we implant everyone with microchips, or pigs might fly.



if capitalism is disgustingly inhumane why did you buy that computer mister voodoo?



So because we reject capitalism we should go live in the woods for the rest of our lives?


Only if its as disgustingly inhumane as redstar thinks it is.



they are turning in their graves. wink.gif



Actually if you took the time to read any Marxist writings you would agree with RedStar’s description as a pretty accurate reflection of Marx and Engle's vision.


that was just a joke.


If you were actually devoted to those goals then by all means you could join. But because you fail to see the incompatibility of freedom and capitalism, you are restricted to OI

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

hedgehog retribution...



It is good to see that you are more on the same page than you were previously with regards to what most of us are actually talking about.


What do you expect from a stupid primitive capitalist it only took like 100 posts for christsakes :wub:


As others have said it is freedom also from the class structures imposed upon us by capitalism that we see as the problem over and and above what you agree with that we see as the problem. Wth ownership ad inheritance comes problems of class replication and very unequal starting points in life over and above the abilities we are born with that cause problems.


i inherited millions. you will never get me on this one.



Do you advocate the freedom to rape and murder? Or that you would prefer that these practices that reduce freedom stop? Well it is the same with accumulation of capital.


rape and murder? you can't compare!! I'm not leopold for christsakes. :rolleyes:



The reason "revolution" comes into it is because those that benifit from the exploitation involved in capitalism control many of the agencies of change and will not freely give up this power and influence.


Too right. but how do the people free themselves from the revolutionaries in the transition to a libertarian society? Hey, i'm all for communism if we were smurfs, but as we ain't, the only freedom i can purchase is by being a capitalist.


AND WHERE IS MY AVATAR!?!?!?!??!

[encephalon]

how do the people free themselves from the revolutionaries in the transition to a libertarian society?

The same way they free themselves from capitalist society. Force.

In this, though, you're still assuming all of us to be leninists. I'm an anarcho-communist, and the very thought of a state run by a vanguard disgusts me. A lot of people here agree with me, or go even further than that.

I would really suggest that you start reading up on the *real* history of communism, especially the split between the bolsheviks and other communists early last century (which, in turn, made the term "communist" synonymous, to many, with the leninist desptism a la the USSR).

Actually, you may find this interesting--from the time I started dabbling in political thought (around 13 or so) until I was about 19 or 20, I was an American Libertarian (I'm 26 now). It takes a very big leap in understanding the nature of capitalism as contrary to the freedoms espoused by [american] libertarians, and a lot of self-education (and unlearning from what you've been told by the american propaganda machine).

If you're truly interested in freedom, however, then you must do so; even if you don't think you'll agree. Regardless, though, it's good that you've noticed the libertarianism inherent in communist/anarchist philosophy. Actually, the term libertarian itself means socialist anarchist.. it was "borrowed" by ultra-capitalists in the states to define a movement that is nearly the opposite in terms of what they propose. And I don't think this inversion of terminology was by accident at all.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 07:23 AM
hedgehog retribution...





:lol: I am actually contemplating changing my name now...that is funny, plus it would confuse a lot of people.


What do you expect from a stupid primitive capitalist it only took like 100 posts for christsakes :wub:
When start from the view that they are right t can take forever to convince them otherwise....I am not saying it is true here, but it is why it is important to listen to arguments not just your own instincts regarding something.


i inherited millions. you will never get me on this one.
:huh:?


rape and murder? you can't compare!! I'm not leopold for christsakes. :rolleyes:
Also to Tungsten's response to my post: I am not saying that they are the same, or as bad. However both cause harm, and it is only when actions cause harm that they should be restricted...If you don't agree that people should be able to rape and murder, then from a Marxist view use of the capitalist economic structure should also be prevented.

I personally don't rape or murder, but it is not because of some bourgeois law telling me not to, it is because it is not conducive to the society I want to live in. Likewise there does not have to be some Stalinesque agency stamping on traders to prevent what you call free trade.

The reason I don't see this as "free trade" is because people have actual needs. Whilst they can theoretically choose to ignore their needs, I don't see this as a reasonable or humane objection. Perhaps for strictly luxury goods your method would be slightly more tollerable, but even then I don't think it is the only one. The rest of the time it is disgusting and oppressive, when you take "need" into account your defence does not work.


Too right. but how do the people free themselves from the revolutionaries in the transition to a libertarian society? Hey, i'm all for communism if we were smurfs, but as we ain't, the only freedom i can purchase is by being a capitalist.
Are primary goal is to become smurf, this is achieved through the transitory process of smurfalism....

Actually read encephelon's post. This is a valid objection, and it is why I do not like the idea of revolutionary vanguards.


AND WHERE IS MY AVATAR!?!?!?!??!
Maybe lost following the hack?

[Tungsten]

Hedgehogretribution

Also to Tungsten's response to my post: I am not saying that they are the same, or as bad. However both cause harm, and it is only when actions cause harm that they should be restricted
But...you haven't explained how free trade causes harm.

Likewise there does not have to be some Stalinesque agency stamping on traders to prevent what you call free trade.
Is free trade harmful or isn't it? If it is, then why isn't it going to be stamped out?

The reason I don't see this as "free trade" is because people have actual needs.
How does that make it non-free?

Whilst they can theoretically choose to ignore their needs, I don't see this as a reasonable or humane objection.
I don't like this "you will care about other people...or else" caper; you have no right to force me to care and I don't particularly want to be a slave to those in need (or anyone else for that matter). Setting up such a society would do more harm than good.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Tungsten; on the one hand you suggest that if free trade is harmful it should be "stamped out" (this sounds very authoritarian to me) and on the other you don't like the care or else idea? If you do not hold a coherent position then how is analysis and assessment of it supposed to be possible?

What I meant by refusal to adopt Stalinesque approaches is that the mere suggestion of support for capitalism should not result in you being selt to the gulags or being punished by some almighty big-brother style dictatorship.

Free trade does not allow for real choice because of the economic compusion faced by workers. The choice of "accept it or perish" does not constitute a valid choice as far as I am concerned.

If there was a real choice then perhaps I would be led to less radical conclusions I would hope that I still would be, but can't say for sure) but as there isn't I stand by my position.

Why would you be a slave? :huh:

[red team]

What I meant by refusal to adopt Stalinesque approaches is that the mere suggestion of support for capitalism should not result in you being selt to the gulags or being punished by some almighty big-brother style dictatorship.


Personally, I like the idea of forced death matches between Capitalists in exchange for food and shelter. I wonder who would win between Warren Buffet and Bill Gates? :lol:

But gulags are entirely unnecessary. Stalin only relied on them because the country was ruined by many years of civil war and industrial sabotage by Capitalists blowing up "their" factories.

With a heavily industrialized region like Europe or North America succeeding in revolution, forced labour of the deposed enemy class is unnecessary. A single bullet to the back of the head would be the simplest solution. This is logically consistent since you cannot be a slave if you're dead, hence no more whining about slavery by Capitalists.

[Komet]

Hello, sorry if I'm doing something wrong as this is my first post here.

I used to be libertarian but after reading through these forums, I think I will be a communist soon.

However, there is one issue I see that does not seem to be covered.

Do you people (communists) support gun control?

[encephalon]

Hello, sorry if I'm doing something wrong as this is my first post here.

I used to be libertarian but after reading through these forums, I think I will be a communist soon.

However, there is one issue I see that does not seem to be covered.

Do you people (communists) support gun control?


No Revolutionary leftists support gun control. There are a very select few here that support it yet also claim to be be revolutionary, but as a whole communists and anarchists are absolutely against the government taking weapons away from the people.

It should be said, though, that if you're actually serious.. you may want to do more than read some forum posts before actually claiming you're one thing or another.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 03:44 AM
No Revolutionary leftists support gun control. There are a very select few here that support it yet also claim to be be revolutionary, but as a whole communists and anarchists are absolutely against the government taking weapons away from the people.
Yes, how else can we arm the proles?

Secondly, we're anti-establishmentary by nature, so its rather hard to ask our opinion on mainstream issues and expect a "yes" or "no" answer.

[Shredder]

I'll explain it to you, overlord. This community is an anarchist and libertarian-communist forum. The two terms are effectively synonymns. The term communism extends to ideas that lay outside this community's scope, from Marxists and Trotskyists, all the way to Stalinism, which is what you're familiar with. All of the above are considered forms of despotic Leninism by the bulk of this community.

Since the local beliefs are limited by the lack of sufficient, coherent doctrines, they can be summed up in a matter of sentences, as follows: Capitalism sucks, and one day it will become so terribly bad that the workers will get fed up and take control of society and quickly turn it into a 'gift economy' in which goods are distributed as needed and people are free to labor as they please. There will be no state and people who don't play fair will just be dealt with by concerned citizens.

I know what you're thinking, and yes, it is absurd and utopian. But no more absurd than american libertarianism, which, among innumerable other faults, is hinged on the idea that two parties engaging in a mutual contract agreement are truly acting in equal free will. This would require a version of free will that ignores the material conditions of the chooser's existence. In capitalism, there are two unequal parties, one who controls abundant capital for trade with an endless amount of trading partners, and the second party, who can produce nothing for trade but his own labor power.

There is nothing free about a trade between worker and owner.

[overlord]

I used to be libertarian but after reading through these forums, I think I will be a communist soon.


:o OH SHIT WHAT HAVE I DONE!!!!!!!!!!!! Read some history man!!!! KILL KILL KILL. (I know they wearn't real communists but still), even this guy admitted it:

Red Team:

A single bullet to the back of the head would be the simplest solution. This is logically consistent since you cannot be a slave if you're dead, hence no more whining about slavery by Capitalists.

I like your communism guys. I like it a lot but likewise I will not be a slave to the population if I am a harder worker I want more reward. This is why capitalism is the TRUE libertarianism.


Personally, I like the idea of forced death matches between Capitalists in exchange for food and shelter. I wonder who would win between Warren Buffet and Bill Gates?

Buffet admitted that gates and he regarded themselves as geeks who would not survive had they been born in the feudal era.


I'll explain it to you, overlord. This community is an anarchist and libertarian-communist forum. The two terms are effectively synonymns. The term communism extends to ideas that lay outside this community's scope, from Marxists and Trotskyists, all the way to Stalinism, which is what you're familiar with. All of the above are considered forms of despotic Leninism by the bulk of this community.


:wub: Sorry I thought you were like these guys http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/.

Since you guys hate dictators I love ya. :) But what about Che? He was a murderer!

[encephalon]

For the sake of truth, there are a lot of leninists here. Not so many maoists, and even fewer stalinists--but they are here, and some of them play an active role on the board, with administration and otherwise. I'd say at least 40% of the active posters here are some variant of marxist-leninist.

The board is for the revolutionary left, as the name implies. This includes some authoritarians, though lately it seems that there has indeed been a rejection of the old authoritarian schools. It spans from anarchist to stalinist. Fortunate or not, however, few strict authoritarians make it too long here.


But what about Che? He was a murderer!

No more a murderer than George Washington. In fact, Che didn't even own any slaves! :P "Murderer" is a very strong word, and used in place of "soldier" or any number of less heavy labels for political ends. In your mind, were the allies in ww2 "murderers?" They did, indeed, murder people. Many people. Many more than could have been possible in the cuban revolution. If you fatally shoot a rapist in the act, are you a murderer?

That which differentiates a murderder from someone else that has killed is more than just the fact that they have killed people; the reasons for those deaths are extremely important, and should be considered on par with the act itself, if not considered even moreso.


I like your communism guys. I like it a lot but likewise I will not be a slave to the population if I am a harder worker I want more reward. This is why capitalism is the TRUE libertarianism.

And instead, you want to enslave society through a wage system? Capitalism is contrary to libertarianism because it is based upon exploitation in order to function. In order to make a profit, a capitalist has to exploit someone. You have to sell something for more than it's actual value. That's fine for some people--but they rarely consider the fact that people's lives are treated the same way under capitalism. In order to make a profit, the capitalist has to buy the worker's labor for less than that labor is worth; and the worker, having nothing of value (at least enough to sustain him), mustsell this labor to the capitalist at the price that the capitalist demands, regardless of that labor's worth. In other words, they are forced to sell their entire lives to the will of the capitalist, to be disposed of at will.


If you measure yourself by the things you own and acquire, you'll live a rather sorry life. In any case: if there's enough for everyone to live well, then why would you need more? What, exactly, does it accomplish to have more than someone else? Are you so consumed by pride that you need to have so much more than kids starving 50 miles from your home just to feel good about yourself?

And you think hard work is what gets you more in this system? Come now, you aren't that naive. Didn't you state above that you've inherited millions? You must've worked very hard to inherit that. Do you ever wonder why there are more rich families than rich individuals outside of said families?

For the great majority of human beings, hard work gets them a leaky roof over their heads and a lifetime of monotonous labor with no time left for pursuing anything else. The US education system is the laughing stock of the world, where transfer students come to take a break from working as hard as they're used to--yet it's one of the richest countries in the world despite the lack of hard work. The wealth in America comes from innovation, indeed. Capitalists here come up with new ways to exploit and coerce people every other day.

It's very foolish to think that there are poor people simply because they don't work as hard as you. Even the most unashamed newly-rich capitalist admits that they've gotten where they are largely by luck and favorable circumstances.

[Dyst]

Under communism, wage slavery will be abolished.

For example you don't have to work (for someone you don't know, creating something that will not benefit you, in order to survive) 25,000 days of your life.

Freedom.

This will be possible in a society where the means of productions are machines producing for society as a whole.

"Libertarianism" is opposed to this development.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 11:49 PM


I like your communism guys. I like it a lot but likewise I will not be a slave to the population if I am a harder worker I want more reward.
Did you know that in capitalism, someone who slacks off gets paid just as much as someone who works hard in the same job?

[apathy maybe]

Communism is a subset of broader anarchist theory.

So overlord, if you don't like communism, you should look at other variants of anarchism. There are Collectivism, Mutualism, Individualism as well as others (see Wikipedia for some rough meanings).

The differences are economic, and slightly different ideas on violence (individualists and mutualists for example are not generally revolutionary, violence should only be used in self-defence). Economically the issues are around property. I know more about individualism then mutualism or collectivism so I'll focus on it.

Individualists argue for a usage definition of property. They oppose forced communism, but also oppose capitalism. They tend to a market system of distribution, unlike communism. They do however, as I said, oppose capitalism. The differences are simple. Capitalism allows the unfettered accumulation of wealth and all that leads from it. (Capitalism also allows inheritance, another thing that all anarchists oppose, except for certain things.)

Some things that follow from the unfettered accumulation of material resources (which is what wealth is), are power structures based around employment and rent. Along with inheritance, you quickly get a new class structure (assuming equality initially).

Individualists oppose the ownership of property that is not being used, generally oppose usury, and oppose employment (people should be equal partners in a venture).

They see this as maximising personal freedom (they don't oppose voluntary communism), while preventing the power structures and hierarchy which makes them anarchists.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 07:49 AM


:wub: Sorry I thought you were like these guys http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/.

Since you guys hate dictators I love ya. :) But what about Che? He was a murderer!
Those people are Nazbols.

[Tungsten]

Komet

Hello, sorry if I'm doing something wrong as this is my first post here.
Yeah, you're doing something wrong. This:

after reading through these forums, I think I will be a communist soon.
Hegemonicretribution

Tungsten; on the one hand you suggest that if free trade is harmful it should be "stamped out" (this sounds very authoritarian to me) and on the other you don't like the care or else idea? If you do not hold a coherent position then how is analysis and assessment of it supposed to be possible?
There are lots of things that are harmful that should be stamped out and lots of things that are that shouldn't. The nexus that decides is something called the "initiation of force", which I'm sure you've heard mentioned be libertarians somewhere along the line. Free trade doesn't involve that, forced trade, or "care or else" does. Smoking dope doesn't, but throwing someone in jail for smoking it does.

What I meant by refusal to adopt Stalinesque approaches is that the mere suggestion of support for capitalism should not result in you being selt to the gulags or being punished by some almighty big-brother style dictatorship.
Now this where the problem is. You see, you (assuming you're a socialist) don't agree that force should not be allowed in the world of politics. You think it's okay to employ it under certain circumstances, such as if someone is in need, it is okay to force others to care for him.


Free trade does not allow for real choice because of the economic compusion faced by workers. The choice of "accept it or perish" does not constitute a valid choice as far as I am concerned.
By what do we determine "real choice"? What choice would you have otherwise?

If there was a real choice then perhaps I would be led to less radical conclusions I would hope that I still would be, but can't say for sure) but as there isn't I stand by my position.

Why would you be a slave?
If I was forced to provide others with a living at my own expense, without a choice, then I would be a slave.

Shredder

But no more absurd than american libertarianism, which, among innumerable other faults, is hinged on the idea that two parties engaging in a mutual contract agreement are truly acting in equal free will.
If a goal needs to be achieved and you don't have the ablility to do it yourself, then you'll have to rely on those who can and engage in some sort of trade.

This would require a version of free will that ignores the material conditions of the chooser's existence.
Material conditions have little to do with it being mutual or free.

In capitalism, there are two unequal parties, one who controls abundant capital for trade with an endless amount of trading partners, and the second party, who can produce nothing for trade but his own labor power.
You mean that it can't be free or mutually beneficial if one side is pecieved to benefit more than the other? How absurd.
Dyst

Under communism, wage slavery will be abolished.
That's good news. It doesn't really exist anyway, so it shouldn't be a difficult task.

For example you don't have to work (for someone you don't know, creating something that will not benefit you, in order to survive) 25,000 days of your life.
According to some of you, we won't have to work at all. (I'm not sure how anything is going to get done though.)

This will be possible in a society where the means of productions are machines producing for society as a whole.
That's a cop out. Fully automated production is many decades away and can happen without the need for socialism. So what will you do after the revolution until this happens? You work creating something that doesn't benefit you for some other member of society you probably don't know. Great, huh?

"Libertarianism" is opposed to this development.
Damn right.

JKP

Did you know that in capitalism, someone who slacks off gets paid just as much as someone who works hard in the same job?
Depends on where you work and how smart the boss is.

[Fistful of Steel]

Libertarianism does not equal communism. Libertarians believe in "maximizing freedom" so lack of government interference is a correlation between real communism and libertarianism. However to genuinely eliminate class and allow individuals to have maximum freedom, laissez-faire economic policies must be dropped. It's hard to be free when your boss controls what you do, and you don't get the full value of your labour. Society would just organize around lines of hierarchy based upon business rather than government, with the people in control of the means of production clearly at an advantage and with more freedom than the average person.

[red team]

:o OH SHIT WHAT HAVE I DONE!!!!!!!!!!!! Read some history man!!!! KILL KILL KILL. (I know they wearn't real communists but still), even this guy admitted it:

Why do you think the southern United States is the most racist place in the world? It is because it did not thoroughly do away with the slaveholder class. During the civil war Sherman was bloody, so you should also read some history. He marched his union army into the southern slave holding states when the Confederates were pretty much defeated because he knew (like most political generals know) that you can't compromise with slave holders who from the time of their birth to their grave knew only a life of luxury based on slave labour. People like these cannot adjust to a life of wage work and only do your system in given enough time to worm their way into important positions of society. The trail of distruction by Sherman was massive. nearly 623,026 combatants were killed, but in the end it proven fruitless as the end of reconstruction and the beginning of Jim Crow segregation breathed new life into the corpse of southern slavocracy.

Shermans March (http://www.term-papers.us/ts/ea/hmd342.shtml)

Do you think letting a group of superwealthy Capitalists live who only knew an existence of luxury from their birth to their graves would do the new society any good? Do you think they'll adjust to regular wage work from working as CEOs and investors? Do you think after failing to adjust to being workers they'll give terrorism and subterfuge a try? England as well as some other European countries still have wealthy (and powerful since power derives from wealth and title) "constitutional" monarchies because the Capitalist revolution there was a lot less bloody and thorough than in France. There is no more of the Louis dynasty in France because of the bloodiness.

[Komet]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 03:44 AM
It should be said, though, that if you're actually serious.. you may want to do more than read some forum posts before actually claiming you're one thing or another.
Well yeah I'll definitely read more into it before calling myself a communist and potentially making the current image of communists worse...

Besides stuff on Che and the Manifesto itself, are there any specific things you recommend for me to read?

Also, is Tungsten pro or anti communism? The internet was what influenced me to become an atheist, and I'm happy with atheism. Internet forums, while not being the best source of information for making decisions, has helped me make several decisions I'm fine with.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 06:17 PM
Free trade doesn't involve that, forced trade, or "care or else" does. Smoking dope doesn't, but throwing someone in jail for smoking it does.
I do see free trade as forceful. OK, it isn't necessarily the same as something instant such as a hold-up, but in the long run it is similar. If someone choses to opt out where there only other options is starving and suffering, then it is a drawn out version of "your money or your life" only it is "your labour or your life."


Now this where the problem is. You see, you (assuming you're a socialist) don't agree that force should not be allowed in the world of politics. You think it's okay to employ it under certain circumstances, such as if someone is in need, it is okay to force others to care for him.
Well I suppose it is your assumptions where your problem is, as they are either incorrect, or incomplete. In the world of politics (electoral) I see violence as necessary only when all other avenues have failed. I would have supported female, or black movements that used violence to gain the vote when white men were voting against their right to join "their democracy." I would now support violence used to establish a fairer and more effective system, as the current one is self-sustaining/preserving and riddled with problems that it won't cure itself.

I don't support the idea that you or I should be forced to work at gunpoint, and all for the benifit of some that don't contribute. That is too close to capitalism (replace gunpoint with economic compulsion) for my liking.

What I see personally as a better option is to create enough so that all needs are satisfied (it isn't hard with better distribution). Even now, if all that was roduced was more equally distributed there would be no need for hunger, sure not everyone would have a sports car, but everyone could have a guaranteed standard of living. That is not what I am suggesting as such, but rather illustrates better the nature of what I am implying; that if people have a need then they should have this need met, if they have a want then that is a little different, but they should be free to go off and work for it.


By what do we determine "real choice"? What choice would you have otherwise?
Well by choice I don't mean take the only job available to you because of the economic climate, and the position you were born into (out of your control) or starve. Rather more options, as is supposedly implied through capitalism.


If I was forced to provide others with a living at my own expense, without a choice, then I would be a slave
Again I think that this has to do with a misconception of being forced. Of course there are others here that totally disagree with me, and I can only ask to be considered seperate from debates with them (as I consder you seperate from other restricted members) so as to better understand each other.

All I can really say is that you shouldn't be forced, and that I never said you should be.

[encephalon]

Well yeah I'll definitely read more into it before calling myself a communist and potentially making the current image of communists worse...

Besides stuff on Che and the Manifesto itself, are there any specific things you recommend for me to read?


Others here may recomend Lenin; I'd only recomend his stuff only inasmuch to know not what to do :P

Head on over to http://www.marxists.org/ and browse a bit. There's a lot there worth reading.


Also, is Tungsten pro or anti communism? The internet was what influenced me to become an atheist, and I'm happy with atheism. Internet forums, while not being the best source of information for making decisions, has helped me make several decisions I'm fine with.


Tungsten is a capitalist. He's restricted in this sub-forum because the forum as a whole is for revolutionary leftists. In any case, if you stick around for a while, you will inevitably learn things. So good luck!

[red team]

Tungsten is anti-communism

But how can you really take this guy seriously. Everybody support their own politics for a reason and he's no different.

Let's pick apart his claim that Communism is slavery. In fact he's so anti-leftist that he's not even a social-democrat as limited a concession for workers as that.

First of all if he and members of his class owns the supermarkets, banks, power companies, shelter, colleges, plumbing and heating, phone service then what else can you do except work for him if you want to live.

Furthermore, because of this monopoly on ownership what recourse do you have if he decides to increase production while cutting wages and workers? You better get your lips glued to his ass and agree with everything he says, again if you want to live. Tungsten agrees with "Libertarianism" which means pure unfetterred Capitalism as in no labour laws, no unfair dismissal laws, no workplace safety laws and no minimum wage.

So it means having your hands chopped off by unsafe industrial equipment is not his responsibilty because you're wearing diapers on the line (no washroom breaks) and have to make 50-60 units a minute with some open band saw or drill just a feet away from you. And he'll pay you whatever the fuck he feels like paying you. 1 dollar an hour? Sure! Will work for food? Why not? Remember, there is no minimum wage laws. If you complain then you're fired. You can't go to the courts because there are no laws against unfair dismissal, hence no power of negotiation for workers. Don't like the deal? Then take a hike (literally) into the woods and live like the unabomber Ted Kaczinsky in a little wooden shack, that is until the land development company he owns decides to take down that shanty town shack you're living in with his hired police goons.

You see hypocrites like him also believe in urban landscape improvement and gentrification. You're in the way of his luxury condo or villa development? Better kiss that cardboard box you call a home goodbye because he just bought the land under your feet. You see, your mistake was that you never paid for an official deed to the land you're sleeping under so you don't have an official property title recognized by the courts (that he again owns), although you do own your cardboard box.

Now contrast this to Socialism (not Communism which is a world wide stateless entity)

- Free medical care.
- Free education up to the university level.
With quality education I might add and not simply teaching
to a standardized multiple guess exam
- Very low cost housing.
- Affordable food.
- Labour rights protecting against workplace abuse.
- You receive the full value of your labour (with a small amount taxed for public utilities)
- Guaranteed right to a job for those qualified in the field.

Now, who would complain that this is slavery except for the very privileged who never really worked in their lives, or egotistical sociopaths wanting to become like kings.

Speaking of which, what are kings? Now, Tungsten claim to be against feudalism, but how do you think feudalism developed? It magically appeared and you got kings enforcing their divine right to take property? No, kings are just very big landlords which developed a system for keeping the rabble in line. And since inheritance laws are not invalid big landlords became dynasties in which people simply assumed that the biggest landlord family ruling over them is the natural order of things, so this also explains his insistence on the divine right of inheritance should he manage to exploit enough labour to gain a huge fortune to pass on to his prince and princesses.

Now what can we say except that "Libertarians" are vampire-kings in larval stage who needs to be guillotine before they develop their fangs, that is if they can gather enough support for their program aside from a few elected dog catchers.

[Shredder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 06:17 PM
Shredder

But no more absurd than american libertarianism, which, among innumerable other faults, is hinged on the idea that two parties engaging in a mutual contract agreement are truly acting in equal free will.
If a goal needs to be achieved and you don't have the ablility to do it yourself, then you'll have to rely on those who can and engage in some sort of trade.

This would require a version of free will that ignores the material conditions of the chooser's existence.
Material conditions have little to do with it being mutual or free.

In capitalism, there are two unequal parties, one who controls abundant capital for trade with an endless amount of trading partners, and the second party, who can produce nothing for trade but his own labor power.
You mean that it can't be free or mutually beneficial if one side is pecieved to benefit more than the other? How absurd.

I needed to quote all that crap so you can take another look at it. Do you see how much your posting style sucks? The quotes you take, you split up into individual sentences to destroy the coherence of the ideas, which you then pretend have no relation to eachother. Then you reply with a one-liner and move on to quote the next fragment. The result is that, if we were to remove the quote boxes from your post, one might mistake your comments as statements and mine as refutations. I've made fun of such posting habits before, but you have taken it to a whole new level.

Anyway, there is nothing 'perceived' about the differences between classes. It is a material reality under capitalist property relations. "Organizing some kind of trade" in capitalism is not the idyllic bartering that libertarians fancy. Real capitalism is a billionair with endless capital trading with a worker who owns only his own labor for sale. This is not mutual, it is parasitic, the opposite of mutual. This isn't perception, it's material reality, and material reality is the one and only determinant of freedom. The laws of physics prevent you from flying by flapping your arms, just as the laws of economics restrict the freedom in capitalist society to those who have enough capital.

I think you need to take a break from libertarianism. When it gets to a point where you call material reality "absurd", you have left the realm of politics and entered the world of cultism.

[Tungsten]

Komet

Also, is Tungsten pro or anti communism?
Read my posts and find out.
Hegemonicretribution

I do see free trade as forceful. OK, it isn't necessarily the same as something instant such as a hold-up,
It isn't forceful then.

but in the long run it is similar. If someone choses to opt out where there only other options is starving and suffering, then it is a drawn out version of "your money or your life" only it is "your labour or your life."
It's a case of "your labour of your life" no matter what system you're living under. Someone's got to provide the food. If you're not going to provide you own, then you've got to buy it from someone in exchange for something (provided by your labour). What other options are there? These utopias some people here are promising where work is "opitional" and done at leisure are unworkable.

What I see personally as a better option is to create enough so that all needs are satisfied (it isn't hard with better distribution).
Whose going to be creating this and who's going to pay them?

Even now, if all that was roduced was more equally distributed there would be no need for hunger, sure not everyone would have a sports car, but everyone could have a guaranteed standard of living.
But the important point is that some would be living at the expense of others, without their permission.

Well by choice I don't mean take the only job available to you because of the economic climate, and the position you were born into (out of your control) or starve.
You've missed the other question: What choice would you have otherwise?

Again I think that this has to do with a misconception of being forced. Of course there are others here that totally disagree with me, and I can only ask to be considered seperate from debates with them (as I consder you seperate from other restricted members) so as to better understand each other.

All I can really say is that you shouldn't be forced, and that I never said you should be.
But how are all needs to be filled, presumably at the expense of someone else, without the use of force? Can you guarantee they'll all grant you permission?

red team

Tungsten is anti-communism

But how can you really take this guy seriously. Everybody support their own politics for a reason and he's no different.
So why shouldn't he take me seriously if I'm no different to everyone else?


Let's pick apart his claim that Communism is slavery. In fact he's so anti-leftist that he's not even a social-democrat as limited a concession for workers as that.

First of all if he and members of his class
I'm "working class", you clown. I see you're a believer of this "economic determinism" nonsense in which your class is determined by "material conditions". I have nothing to gain from communism; it's "quick fix" ideology that wreaks of anti-intellectualism that no one who's worth anything, worker or otherwise, would benefit from.

Tungsten agrees with "Libertarianism" which means pure unfetterred Capitalism as in no labour laws, no unfair dismissal laws, no workplace safety laws and no minimum wage.
That's nice and vague. Say a little, imply a lot. :rolleyes:

So it means having your hands chopped off by unsafe industrial equipment is not his responsibilty because you're wearing diapers on the line (no washroom breaks) and have to make 50-60 units a minute with some open band saw or drill just a feet away from you. And he'll pay you whatever the fuck he feels like paying you. 1 dollar an hour? Sure! Will work for food? Why not? Remember, there is no minimum wage laws. If you complain then you're fired. You can't go to the courts because there are no laws against unfair dismissal, hence no power of negotiation for workers. Don't like the deal? Then take a hike (literally) into the woods and live like the unabomber Ted Kaczinsky in a little wooden shack, that is until the land development company he owns decides to take down that shanty town shack you're living in with his hired police goons.
Caricatures R'us strikes again.

You see hypocrites like him also believe in urban landscape improvement and gentrification. You're in the way of his luxury condo or villa development? Better kiss that cardboard box you call a home goodbye because he just bought the land under your feet.
That would be initiating force wouldn't it? Wouldn't that violate the cornerstone of libertarian ideology?

You understand absolutely fuck all about libertarianism, but don't let that doesn't stop you from *****ing about it.

Now contrast this to Socialism (not Communism which is a world wide stateless entity)

- Free medical care.
Bought to you at the expense of other workers, who also recieve free healthcare at your expense. Don't like the idea of working as a slave to provide another workers with healthcare? Well, a bullet in the head (of if you're unlucky, a death match) awaits anyone who doesn't want to take part in this wonderful system.

- Free education up to the university level.
See above.

With quality education I might add and not simply teaching
to a standardized multiple guess exam
How this is going to be guaranteed is anyone's guess. Do enlighten us all as how you're going to implement this, please. I'm sure Komet would find it interesting too, wanting to learn about communism and everything.

- Very low cost housing.
See above.

- Affordable food.
See above. (You mean it isn't affordable now? :rolleyes: )

- You receive the full value of your labour (with a small amount taxed for public utilities)
"Full value" being whatever the government says it is and "small amount" being somewhere in the region of 100% (Wouldn't want you to get too rich, or they'll accuse you of getting rich at the expense of someone else.)

- Guaranteed right to a job for those qualified in the field.
How this is going to be guaranteed too is anyone's guess. All this has been pulled out of his ass and he's literally writing cheques he can't cash. He's like most communists here- all revolution and no plan as to how he's going to bring affordable housing etc. into existence. It's probably at the point of a gun, if history is anything to go by, but we'll see.

Now, who would complain that this is slavery except for the very privileged who never really worked in their lives, or egotistical sociopaths wanting to become like kings.
Anyone who isn't. "Red team", or whatever he calls himself, thinks communism is a good idea because it fuels his proto-fascist desire for control and command, while at the same time allowing him to pretend to be an opponent of it. i.e. he thinks he's going to be in charge.

Collectivisation, guaranteed success, inevitability and utopianism have always been the mask of the authoritarian. I shouldn't imagine this particular instance is any different.
Shredder

I needed to quote all that crap so you can take another look at it. Do you see how much your posting style sucks?
You'll have to pardon me for not giving a shit.

The quotes you take, you split up into individual sentences to destroy the coherence of the ideas, which you then pretend have no relation to eachother.
I don't do that. Show me which of your ideas I've split up and taken out of context.

Then you reply with a one-liner and move on to quote the next fragment. The result is that, if we were to remove the quote boxes from your post, one might mistake your comments as statements and mine as refutations. I've made fun of such posting habits before, but you have taken it to a whole new level.
But my points still stand. Cry me a river.

Anyway, there is nothing 'perceived' about the differences between classes. It is a material reality under capitalist property relations. "Organizing some kind of trade" in capitalism is not the idyllic bartering that libertarians fancy.
It's not idyllic. It's what happens- and you might have learned from red team's many examples that rhetoric doesn't work. Two people voluntarily giving each other something is still a trade, no matter how much you call it exploitation.

Real capitalism is a billionair with endless capital trading with a worker who owns only his own labor for sale. This is not mutual, it is parasitic, the opposite of mutual.
You haven't explained how it's parasitic, you've just reasserted your own position, which was pretty dumb in the first place. If the worker was getting nothing in return, then the relationship would indeed be parasitic. If the worker was compelled to work using violence (or the threat of it), then it wouldn't be mutual at all. This isn't what's happening, though.

This isn't perception, it's material reality, and material reality is the one and only determinant of freedom.
A penniless man living in a dictatorship and a peniless man living in a free society are both as unfree as one another? What idiocy. There's no way you can guantantee an income for everyone in a free society because people are also free to make mistakes.

I think you need to take a break from libertarianism. When it gets to a point where you call material reality "absurd",
I didn't call it absurd, I said it was absurd to use it as a determinent of freedom.

[redstar2000]

Naturally I welcome overlord's attempt to understand the communist goal with a commentary on my essay.

Comparing it to the "libertarian" capitalist vision is, however, rather misleading.

Right-Wing "Libertarianism" and the Restoration of Slavery (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083547923&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Arguments as to the practicality of communism are inevitably related to material conditions as they exist now and are irrelevant to conditions as they may exist a half-century or more into the future.

We cannot help but be aware that "the ways people think" have changed enormously over the last few centuries...and those who imagine that those changes are going to, in some mysterious way, "just stop" are clearly living in fantasy land. We see in the campaigns for "traditional American values" how ludicrous it is to attempt to "turn back the clock" even to 1950 or so. :lol:

In my opinion, it really boils down to what ordinary people in their tens and hundreds of millions think is the "acceptable civilized minimum"...and I think the time is approaching when class society will be regarded as failing to meet the acceptable mimimum of civilized existence.

Capitalism, at best, will be regarded as the "highest stage of savagery".

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

[red team]

You see hypocrites like him also believe in urban landscape improvement and gentrification. You're in the way of his luxury condo or villa development? Better kiss that cardboard box you call a home goodbye because he just bought the land under your feet.

That would be initiating force wouldn't it? Wouldn't that violate the cornerstone of libertarian ideology?


I see that you left out the part I've written that said:

You see, your mistake was that you never paid for an official deed to the land you're sleeping under so you don't have an official property title recognized by the courts (that he again owns), although you do own your cardboard box.

So although you do own your small wood panel shack, you don't own the land under which it rests upon. Since Tungsten now is the landlord, he can charge you whatever amount for the use of that land. If you can't afford to pay the land rent then "law enforcement" in the form of his private security army is justified in violently evicting you. There's no initiating force at all, just shrewdness in using legal technicalities and official documents like deeds to the land and the "separateness" of land and land improvements like your tiny shack for instance...

You really do have to admire the cunning of these sneak-thieves, but then again maybe not. :angry:

But this is really beside the point. Do you even want the choice of either being worker with absolutely no protection and no right of negotiation working in horrendous conditions or being a destitute shack dweller?




Now contrast this to Socialism (not Communism which is a world wide stateless entity)

- Free medical care.

Bought to you at the expense of other workers, who also recieve free healthcare at your expense. Don't like the idea of working as a slave to provide another workers with healthcare? Well, a bullet in the head (of if you're unlucky, a death match) awaits anyone who doesn't want to take part in this wonderful system.

It's called cooperation, which is quite a foreign concept for these so-called "Libertarians" being that they worship a scramble-your-way-to-the-top-while-kicking-the-other-guy-down type of competition.

As for death matches, now wouldn't that be poetic justice? :D
I mean just think about this for a while. These cappies subjected workers to their dog-eat-dog, winner-takes-all competitive game whether or not we want to participate in it. And we all know that electoral politics is bullshit. You don't set the rules of the game by electing this or that representative of big business to public office. You never do. The whole charade just doesn't work that way. Death matches between cappies is like what they say -- "a taste of their own medicine".

But of course we can be democratic about this. It's all about "giving the consumer choices" as cappies are so fond of saying in their marketing-speak. We can take a poll to see which cappie is worthy of a death match and which are simply too fat and unfit to be entertaining. "There's no progress without competition" and "survival of the fittest" as they also like to say. If we're in a good mood we might even let them live in a retirement home after a few entertaining victories. We'll even throw in a commemorative engraved pen for loyal service like bosses do in retirement parties. :lol:

[overlord]

Hmmmmmmmm....
Compare Redstar's:

Capitalism, at best, will be regarded as the "highest stage of savagery".


with... Red Team's

We can take a poll to see which cappie is worthy of a death match and which are simply too fat and unfit to be entertaining. "There's no progress without competition" and "survival of the fittest" as they also like to say. If we're in a good mood we might even let them live in a retirement home after a few entertaining victories.

There is a test for absurity according to Voltaire. "If we beleive in absurdities we commit atrocities". It is one of the finest quotes I have ever heard.


In Redstar's essay on libertarian right, he states:
"It would be a tough life...unless you were pretty rich."

This is why I love capitalism. IT IS A TOUGH LIFE! What sort of society will bring us the greatest advancements in science and technology? One which is a tough life and trade is free, or an easy life where one is not allowed to hire anyone? It's pretty easy to see which one will result in poverty.

Redstar:


But of course we can be democratic about this. It's all about "giving the consumer choices" as cappies are so fond of saying in their marketing-speak. We can take a poll to see which cappie is worthy of a death match and which are simply too fat and unfit to be entertaining. "There's no progress without competition" and "survival of the fittest" as they also like to say. If we're in a good mood we might even let them live in a retirement home after a few entertaining victories. We'll even throw in a commemorative engraved pen for loyal service like bosses do in retirement parties.

You've obviously been steamrolled a few times.


You see hypocrites like him also believe in urban landscape improvement and gentrification. You're in the way of his luxury condo or villa development? Better kiss that cardboard box you call a home goodbye because he just bought the land under your feet. You see, your mistake was that you never paid for an official deed to the land you're sleeping under so you don't have an official property title recognized by the courts (that he again owns), although you do own your cardboard box.

And you live in a carboard box? :P Like the idiot in the cardboard box really worker REAL HARD for that land owned by the developer. If some bum put a cardboard box on the land i was going to develop i would pour petrol on it and blow the thing up.


So it means having your hands chopped off by unsafe industrial equipment is not his responsibilty because you're wearing diapers on the line (no washroom breaks) and have to make 50-60 units a minute with some open band saw or drill just a feet away from you. And he'll pay you whatever the fuck he feels like paying you. 1 dollar an hour? Sure! Will work for food? Why not? Remember, there is no minimum wage laws. If you complain then you're fired

So what? Get a job someplace else if the employer is a jerk. Like who cares man?


Tungsten agrees with "Libertarianism" which means pure unfetterred Capitalism as in no labour laws, no unfair dismissal laws, no workplace safety laws and no minimum wage.


Tungsten is right. The aforementioned 'rights' are abominations against mankind. If mindless minumum wage type jobs actually paid well, everyone would be in them and no one would bother with the intellectual stuff required to run a modern civilisation! If you don't like your employer or your employer doesn't like you, how is that productive? Take a hike from each other!

[overlord]

So overlord, if you don't like communism, you should look at other variants of anarchism. There are Collectivism, Mutualism, Individualism as well as others (see Wikipedia for some rough meanings).

i am an anarcho-capitalist bro.

[apathy maybe]

Here I was thinking you were Mickey Mouse!

Ahh, a pretend anarchist then. You should still look at other variants of anarchism anyway. If you do believe in maximum liberty, the 'right' to own unlimited amounts of property impinges on other people's rights, you should therefore oppose it.

And what about inheritance? I know dead people have 'rights'!

[overlord]

Yep, just looked over that article. I suppose it's difficult to have property rights without government hey? :D

I don't see why the biggest business couldn't just say "Thank ya very much" and sieze everyone's property. Dont' know why i didn't think of this before. Looks like anarchism has no guarantee of property rights then. :wub:

Looks like those so called anarcho-capitalist philosophers are bastard fools, so I formally renounce this shoddy faith and formally re-adopt a belief in a senatorial aristocracy/plutocratic republic as the sole guarantee of 'fair' capitalism. :)

[Tungsten]

redstar2000

Comparing it to the "libertarian" capitalist vision is, however, rather misleading.

Right-Wing "Libertarianism" and the Restoration of Slavery (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083547923&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Arguments as to the practicality of communism are inevitably related to material conditions as they exist now and are irrelevant to conditions as they may exist a half-century or more into the future.
This is piss-poor.
"It (free consent) presents this as an "abstract value" that is de-coupled from the real material world."

Someone "consents" to work for a low wage because the alternative is starvation...this makes a mockery of the word "consent" in any meaningful sense.

How? How is working for a low wage any less consentual than working for a high one? Consult a dictionary and learn the meaning of consent. Where does it say "consent isn't really consent if done under certain material conditions".

Indeed, in the "Randian universe", one could literally sell oneself into slavery. It would be "consensual"
This is ridiculous. Slavery, like rape, is not consensual by definition. Is it possible to be "raped voluntarily"? No, because what is happening would no longer be rape. And another thing; Rand didn't invent this idea.
In fact, you could even sell your kids into slavery--being minors, they have no "right of consent" and, again, the minimal government could not interfere.
For someone who rants and raves about capitalism, you don't know much about it. You can't sell your children into slavery any more that you're allowed to murder them. You're your children's guardians, not their slave masters.
"The initial reason that capitalists required a "big government" was to protect themselves from each other."
When we speak of "big governments", we speak of them stepping outside their roles as "policeman" and into another, unwelcome role as "nanny-in-jackboots"; the welfare state being one such result. Was that set up to protect capitalists from each other?
My point is rather an intellectual one:
Haha nice one, Redstar2000.
that were your system to come into existence, the restoration of slavery would logically follow from your concept of each human "owning himself" as a form of property that can be alienated--leased, rented, or sold.
I take your ridicule of "self ownership" to mean that we're not going to be able to own ourselves and therefore act freely under communism.

Did slaves own themselves, or were they owned by others? If you have an inalieable right to self ownership, then how can you legally be owned by others and therefore become a slave?
red team

So although you do own your small wood panel shack, you don't own the land under which it rests upon.
This is a poor, overly specfic example. There are laws in my country called squatter's rights, which state that if you make use of the land for a certain period of time, you can't be removed from it. They're a good idea.

Since Tungsten now is the landlord, he can charge you whatever amount for the use of that land. If you can't afford to pay the land rent then "law enforcement" in the form of his private security army is justified in violently evicting you.
You could also do that to someone attempting to invade your house. Are you going to protest about that?

You really do have to admire the cunning of these sneak-thieves, but then again maybe not.
If they're not initiating force, then they can't be theives.

It's called cooperation,
Yeah, at gunpoint. We can do without that.

which is quite a foreign concept for these so-called "Libertarians" being that they worship a scramble-your-way-to-the-top-while-kicking-the-other-guy-down type of competition.
Kicking the other guy down would involve using force against him. Now what did I say about that?

As for death matches, now wouldn't that be poetic justice?
No, it would be the opposite.

I mean just think about this for a while. These cappies subjected workers to their dog-eat-dog, winner-takes-all competitive game
Which isn't really a dog-eat-dog, winner-takes-all competitive game, but don't let that bother you. If it was, you'd have probably been blown away by some rival worker long ago, or killed in an attack by a competitor's company.

I have no love whatsoever of GW Bush, but you remind me of those protestors who march around denouncing him as Hitler, yet never bother to look in the mirror and ask themselves: "If Bush is a Nazi and I'm publicly protesting against him, then why am I still alive?"

We're not living is this caricature you present and no one is arguing in favour of it, so why do you insist otherwise? Let's use Occam's razor- The simplest answer is usually the correct one: You're doing it to convince yourself.

[red team]

Originally posted by Komet
Internet forums, while not being the best source of information for making decisions, has helped me make several decisions I'm fine with.

Wanna know what "Libertarian" society would be like:

Watch this: Freejack (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0790750201/002-3704124-8795226?v=glance&n=130)

They own the banks, the courts and the police. They have their own private security armies.
They will not be you. You can sell your labour, blood, and organs to them so they can have the perfect fun life and live to a healthy old age. Your end of the deal? You get to live by not starving to death.

As for the theme of the movie, they might even live forever if they can master the technology of copying minds. Now all you have to do is "voluntarily" sell them your body... BUHAHAHAHA!!!

[red team]

This is a poor, overly specfic example. There are laws in my country called squatter's rights, which state that if you make use of the land for a certain period of time, you can't be removed from it. They're a good idea.

It never stopped the colonist ranchers from expanding into Native American lands. It never stopped modern land developers from encroaching into Native Canadian lands. Why should it be any different in theoretical "Libertarianism"?

In the real world when you're in the way of BIG MONEY things get resolved more like this:

Originally posted by overlord
And you live in a carboard box? :P Like the idiot in the cardboard box really worker REAL HARD for that land owned by the developer. If some bum put a cardboard box on the land i was going to develop i would pour petrol on it and blow the thing up.


If it was, you'd have probably been blown away by some rival worker long ago
Why murder and risk being found out when you can lie, blame and generally make your rival look bad to get him fired? Promotion and job retention is less about talent and more about "alliance" building and how much your boss likes you (Plays Survivor Reality Show Soundtrack).

This usually happens in management or semi-management positions. Tells you a lot about those positions doesn't it?


or killed in an attack by a competitor's company.
Why bother doing that when you can buy the competition with the rival's CEO a willing seller? Nobody asked the workers if they want to be fired because of "mass redundancies" after a corporate merger did they?




It's called cooperation,

Yeah, at gunpoint. We can do without that.

"Cry me a river" (when you face the firing squad) :lol:

[overlord]

In the real world when you're in the way of BIG MONEY things get resolved more like this:

QUOTE (overlord)
And you live in a carboard box? Like the idiot in the cardboard box really worker REAL HARD for that land owned by the developer. If some bum put a cardboard box on the land i was going to develop i would pour petrol on it and blow the thing up.


Hehehe, that's right. Look at Rockerfeller. He offered to buy out opponent's refineries. The clever ones accepted his Standard Oil Stock, the less clever cash. The guys who didn't sell got their plants blown up with dynamite :lol: Eventually he did a deal with the railways by offering a new method of oil transport. Part of the deal was they were not allowed to deal with anyone except Standard oil, shutting out all competition in the U.S. (this was before the pipeline was invented).


Why murder and risk being found out when you can lie, blame and generally make your rival look bad to get him fired? Promotion and job retention is less about talent and more about "alliance" building and how much your boss likes you (Plays Survivor Reality Show Soundtrack).

That's why i'm never going to get a job. I couldn't take that petty rivalry "office politics" bullshit you get in the workforce. It's so bloody petty the way bestial people waste their lives with that crap.

[Morpheus]

If you took the anti-coercion anti-state principles libertarian capitalists purport to believe in seriously you would arrive at libertarian socialism. Capitalism is inherently statist. See The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/iron_fist.html)

[overlord]

So i'm a socialist :o :o :o :lol: :lol: :lol:

That makes me feel better, to know i'm one of you guys. :wub:

[Tungsten]

red team

It never stopped the colonist ranchers from expanding into Native American lands.
What didn't? Libertariansm? When was that enforced by law?

It never stopped modern land developers from encroaching into Native Canadian lands. Why should it be any different in theoretical "Libertarianism"?
Because those involved aren't libertarians.

Why murder and risk being found out when you can lie, blame and generally make your rival look bad to get him fired? Promotion and job retention is less about talent and more about "alliance" building and how much your boss likes you (Plays Survivor Reality Show Soundtrack).
Isn't that what you're planning on doing? Getting an "alliance" together to oust the "others"? How short sighted and anti-intellectual.

This usually happens in management or semi-management positions. Tells you a lot about those positions doesn't it?
It happens at all levels. You only see what you want to see.

"Cry me a river" (when you face the firing squad)
Forcing people to pay for your healthcare can be bad for your health. Threatening people with firing squads can be even worse.
Morpheus

If you took the anti-coercion anti-state principles libertarian capitalists purport to believe in seriously you would arrive at libertarian socialism.
How can anything left wing be called libertarian? I can understand the anarchist's argument, but I've seen people here calling themselves "libertarian communists" and such like. How can you restrict people non-coercively trading and still call one's self a libertarian? Socialism requires market controls to work.

[Morpheus]

The world Libertarian in a political sense was originally coined as a left-wing term in the late 19th century and retains its original meaning in most of the world today. The equation of libertarian with market capitalism is primarily a US thing that started after WW2. Most left-libertarians are anarchists. The phrase "libertarian socialism" is basically a synonym for anarchism. It was coined in France during the period after the Paris Commune when anarchism was outlawed. Anarchists started using the term "libertarian" instead of "anarchist" to describe ourselves in order to avoid state persecution.

A left-libertarian is someone who's opposed to both capitalism & the state. Leftist doesn't mean pro-state, it means pro-economic equality. Many leftists believe that state intervention is the best way to achieve equality, but others disagree and some (such as myself) even go so far as to argue that the state perpetuates inequality. Nor does socialism necessarily require market controls to work. Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are controlled by "the people." How exactly that works varies with different kinds of socialism. Some, state socialists, advocate state control of the economy but not all socialists advocate that. For example, in Yugoslavia the economy was controlled by worker-run cooperatives that competed in the market. That version of socialism is called market socialism. Not that although Yugoslavia's version of socialism is compatable with left-libertarianism, it's government system wasn't because it was also a one-party dictatorship with a bureaucractic elite that leached off the economy through taxation and other means. To be compatable with left-libertarianism Yugoslavia would have had to be either stateless or had a minarchy, rather than a one-party dictatorship. But it's market socialist economy show one of many alternative forms of socialism other than the state socialist model.

The truth is capitalism is really based on coercion & state intervention. To emphasize trade & markets in capitalism is to ignore the coercion inherent in the system. Slave societies often have trade and markets as well, yet if one were to emphasize the market and accuse abolitionists of wanting to "restrict people non-coercively trading" one would clearly be ignoring the coercion inherent in slavery and supporting a system based on coercion. The same is true of capitalism. Under capitalism there is a state-protected monopoly of the means of production by the capitalist class. Because the capitalist class monopolizes the means of production, the rest of us (the working class) have no choice but to sell our labor to them in order to survive. This situation is caused by the capitalist class's monopoly over the means of production, which was obtained and is maintainted through coercion. Capitalism is therefore coercive.

In order for a worker to survive s/he must sell his/her labor and become a wage-slave. Otherwise s/he will not be paid and will eventually starve to death. While some form of productive labor is necessary to produce the basic necessities needed to survive (food, shelter, etc.) there is no reason why this must be in the form of wage-labor. For most of human history it has not. Historically pre-capitalist societies that developed into capitalist ones have all gone through a process called proletarianization whereby the majority of the population was changed from their previous status (usually of peasants) into workers (proletarians). This involved expropriating the land and forcing the population off it; thereby putting the population in a situation where they have to sell their labor to make a living. If most live on the land (as they did in many pre-capitalist societies) then they will not have to sell their labor to make a living and full-fledged capitalism is impossible. The process of proletarianization happened differently in different places and had a number of variations with more then a few bumps on the road. In the first societies where proletarianization started it was a long process that was not originally initiated with the desire to create a capitalist society but by other historical forces. One of the first capitalist countries, England, began this with the “enclosures” whereby lords would enclose land that formerly belonged to peasants and expropriate it for themselves (4). In Mexico the majority of proletarianization started under President Benito Juarez and rapidly accelerated under the dictator Porfialo Diaz. Both Juarez and Diaz were classical liberals who believed in free market capitalism and private property. To that end, Juarez initiated a program whereby public lands and common lands held by Native Americans was expropriated and sold to the highest bidder. Since they have more money, the majority of this land got concentrated in the hands of rich capitalists. Small landholders were often expropriated as well. In most of North America the indigenous economic systems were eventually destroyed by force, along with the indigenous people, and replaced with a capitalist system. In some societies war played a significant role in uprooting peasants and transforming them into wage workers.

There are also many other ways in which capitalism relies on coercion and the state, see The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/iron_fist.html)

Since capitalism is based on coercion we are entirely justified in revolting against it. We should break the capitalist class's monopoly on the means of production by directly seizing control of our workplaces and running them ourselves in a directly democratic fashion.

Libertarian communism takes this a step further and proposes to abolish money & markets alltogether. Rather than competing in a market things would be produced by individuals or voluntary associations and freely distributed on the basis of need following the slogan "from each according to ability, to each according to need." There would be no state or hierarchy of any kind; the whole thing would be voluntary. There would be no need to "restrict people non-coercively trading" anymore than we need to restrict "voluntary vassalage" relations today.

[Tungsten]

Morpheus
The truth is capitalism is really based on coercion & state intervention.
Who's capitalism?

To emphasize trade & markets in capitalism is to ignore the coercion inherent in the system.
There isn't any coercion inherent in free trade- that's why it's free.

Slave societies often have trade and markets as well,
So do most socialist ones, but that's besides the point. An unregulated market is more desirable than a regulated one.

yet if one were to emphasize the market and accuse abolitionists of wanting to "restrict people non-coercively trading" one would clearly be ignoring the coercion inherent in slavery and supporting a system based on coercion.
No one is calling for slavery. Trading slaves and trading goods are two different things. One requires coercion, the other doesn't.

The same is true of capitalism. Under capitalism there is a state-protected monopoly of the means of production by the capitalist class.
Protecting private property from being stolen by others is hardly coercive. If owning property is coercive, what's stealing it? Non-coercive? Hogwash.

Because the capitalist class monopolizes the means of production, the rest of us (the working class) have no choice but to sell our labor to them in order to survive.
There are other choices. Some are too stupid to see them, others too lazy, others just don't wish to see them.

This situation is caused by the capitalist class's monopoly over the means of production,
There isn't any monopoly. Is there a limit to the number of factories and machines that can be bulit? If there is, we're nowhere near it and we weren't in Marx's day.

which was obtained and is maintainted through coercion.
How was it obtained though coercion? You mean people were paid to bulid these things and do it for a living? Oh yeah, really coercive.

A primitive tribesman has an identical condition- he has to hunt or he'll starve. Where are his oppressors? Who does he have a revolution against? You're ignoring the nature of existence,which is: work or starve. It's not a regime imposed on you by capitalists, work of some sort or another is a condition of existence.

In order for a worker to survive s/he must sell his/her labor and become a wage-slave. Otherwise s/he will not be paid and will eventually starve to death. While some form of productive labor is necessary to produce the basic necessities needed to survive (food, shelter, etc.) there is no reason why this must be in the form of wage-labor. For most of human history it has not.
Most of human history consisted of slavery and brutality.

Historically pre-capitalist societies that developed into capitalist ones have all gone through a process called proletarianization whereby the majority of the population was changed from their previous status (usually of peasants) into workers (proletarians). This involved expropriating the land and forcing the population off it; thereby putting the population in a situation where they have to sell their labor to make a living.
And you now think that a person owning a factory has shoved you off your land and is now forcing you to work on it? Who did that to you? Are they still alive?

If most live on the land (as they did in many pre-capitalist societies) then they will not have to sell their labor to make a living and full-fledged capitalism is impossible.
Look how successful and enjoyable "living on the land" was/is.

In Mexico the majority of proletarianization started under President Benito Juarez and rapidly accelerated under the dictator Porfialo Diaz. Both Juarez and Diaz were classical liberals who believed in free market capitalism and private property. To that end, Juarez initiated a program whereby public lands and common lands held by Native Americans was expropriated and sold to the highest bidder.
They believed in it so much that they stole other people's lands? That doesn't make them belivers in private property, it makes them violators of it and you're therefore wrong to call them "classic liberals". It is fair for me to call Ludwig von Mises a socialist? He's about as much an advocate of socialism as those people you mention are advocates of classic liberalism.

There are also many other ways in which capitalism relies on coercion and the state, see The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/iron_fist.html)
Well I'm sorry, but after that previous paragraph, I'm not interested. You seem to think that capitalism can exist seperately from property rights and individual rights, which are it's essential caricteristics (as any classic liberal here will testify), so what does that tell me about the credibility of what you're trying to argue?

[red team]

The thing you've got to remember here is that Lord Tungsten believes in plausable deniability. There's no paper trail leading from the paid goons used to clear out the slums with extreme violence and such a upstanding and law-abiding citizen as himself. It's plausable because there is no documented contract that will hold up in court between the police goons or better yet mafia arsonists and this kindly generous philanthropist. And its entirely deniable because Lord Tungsten is a "non-violent" Libertarian who doesn't associate with such arsonist scumbags who are desperate enough to beg him for that "contract hit" on the slum neighborhoods which is of course paid for with untraceable cash. I myself have to admit that this is a pretty ingenious setup.

[Tungsten]

In contrast, looking at the general hatemongering, the constant threats of firing squads/deathmatches as well as the delusion that you can shoot your way into utopia, the paper trail leading you to Stalin shouldn't be too hard to find.

[KalmKidd]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 09:13 AM
Actually, if you actually read some of the stuff instead of have a kneejerk reaction, you'll find that the american "libertarian" and anarchists have much in common except for the deification of capitalism. (and communists have the same goal as anarchists; they differ in evaluation and methodology). What you fail to realize is that capitalism is based upon exploitation--and there is no freedom in exploitation.
exactly same goal diffrent way of achieving it, and reason of acheiving.