A plan to make it happen

[Antpower]

Capitalism is based on the idea of using a persons greed or self interest to motivate them. The problem with doing that, is by basic reward training, it teaches them to become much more greedy. That greed is what is destroying the world, not humans. Our only hope of preventing the Earth's destruction, is in creating a new society, now, before it is too late. Here's how:

Think about a tiny seed. If you look inside a seed, you'll see a tiny version of the adult plant. Now, replace that tiny plant with a small community. It doesn't necessarily look exactly the same as the matured version, but it has all the systems it needs. The other part of the seed is food. That would be the rest of us helping to support that community, with money or helping it to find work or whatever it needs to get it up and running.

My plan is to start in a poor country, where the small amount of money we could provide actually means something. I am well aware that no one wants to give money, so we must work around that.

Obviously, the idea of starting a small community is nothing new. Similar communities have been around for 2,500 years, and they operate on about 1/4th the resources. If they could produce as much income per person, that would mean very fast growth.

What was missing was a decision making system which allows the community to produce income and new technology. Democracy blocks creative thinking. Democracy is needed in some cases, but we must be aware of its problems. We can not expect an inventor to invent, if he or she needs to get approval for a new idea in a democratic or consensus based system. A system which can not create new technology, will not succeed.

Look at the Anabaptists, they require approval to accept technology, and as a consequence they ride around in horse and buggies, even to this day. They don't even accept technology which is tested and known to work. How can you expect such a system to accept new ideas, which are not tested? How can you expect them to vote to grant resources to an inventor?

That is where communes fail. They are much more efficient, using about 1/4th the resources for living, but they don't generate income or technology very well. That is because they have a very bad decision making system. Many use direct democracy (where everybody votes), which is in reality an authoritarian system. It is the group having authority over the individuals, controlling them, preventing them from developing technology or income sources. That is what makes communes so poor.

Ants use a system where every individual is free to decide where to go to find food. Then when they find it, they share the information with the others. The result, is ants even with their pathetic intelligence, raise crops and livestock. Some raise various species of fungus. Others farm aphids for the sugary sap they give off, literally carrying them to and from the plants. Other ants keep other insects for work. That is technology far beyond any other animals in the animal kingdom. We marvel at chimpanzees, 'cause they use tools, but there's a far cry from tools to agriculture. Think about how difficult it would be to engineer a bridge across a river? Worse yet, with a material only 20 times as strong as it's weight. What a nightmare that would be for a human, but ants do it, and extremely fast. That is not instinct, every bridge must be engineered, every time theres problems to solve.
My system is patterned after the ants. To try to get as close as we can to what they do. The ants have a system which is tested and known to be extremely successful. For every person on Earth, there's about 10 pounds of ants. Individual freedom, is where it is at.

On the inside the community operates one way, with the people pretty much isolated from Capitalism. On the outside though, the community interfaces with capitalism. All communes are this way, it is well tested and works well. That is nothing new.

To boost that isolation, we do as much self reliance as we can efficiently. Our communities will grow their own food, for example, rather than buying everything. To boost that isolation even further, we link up with other communities. With those which are willing, we share technology, income and products. With others we might just share products or work collaboratively.

Networking will make small communities act like much larger communities. A small community with 1000 people, for example, in a network of 1 million people, will act like a community of 1 million people.

Our percentage of self reliance goes up as our population grows. With more and more self reliance, we become less and less dependent on Capitalism. When we become 100 percent self reliant, we will be totally free.

An individual can live 100 percent self reliant. It is difficult, but it can be done. 100 people working together can do that much easier and live much nicer. We don't need to be 100 percent self reliant though. We can be 50% self reliant or so. If the system works, it must generate new technology and new ways of generating income for the community.

I look outside, and I see the streets are desperately in need of repairs. There's uncovered manholes everywhere, where children could fall in and die. Why? Is it because I'm in a poor country? Don't think poverty. There's many many people here who have no work. There is tons of work that needs to be done here. Why is the work not being done?

It is not a matter of not having enough money. It is a matter of not having enough collaboration. Let us learn from this lesson. Let us collaborate, pool our resources, so that we can create what could not have been created otherwise.

My resources are a 100 person construction company in the Philippines, two people to help me there (we are going to convert that into this type of community). Another person in the USA who wants to start a community there, a small group in Europe, who would like to start something but lack money, and a whole bunch of product ideas and a customer who needs some molding done. That could be turned into money for the cause. I'm self employed, I work over the Internet, which is a big resource also, 'cause I might be able to find more work to get people in the Philippines working and producing income to feed our communities. I do plastic mold design.

I realize that few people want to give any money, but let us not allow ourselves to consider ourselves poor because of that. Let us look to our collaborative resources. Let's all work together on this. Share our information. What are your skills? Are you in a position to help us get work, if we can set up some machines or work by Internet or whatever? Would you volunteer time to the project? Using the time to work overtime and volunteering that extra income would be better most likely though, 'cause people in the Philippines can work a long time, maybe even a week on one hour's worth of overtime.

Are you all talk, or do you want to do something?

Check out my decision making system.
http://conceivia.com/about-us/individual-decision-power/

Tony

[RNK]

I'd suggest staying away from this Forum and pursuing your goals in real life. Here you will find nothing but a bunch of kids itching to be elitist little punks who will flame you for thinking differently.

Good ideas, though.

[The Grey Blur]

If I wasn't an elitist little punk I'd give you money, motherfucker

BTW - Don't ever think differently

[OneBrickOneVoice]

It's really interesting. I like the idea, it's just that what would stop someone from not following the plan when he finds food and just keeping it all for himself?

[Antpower]

Just like in a company, what you do is owned by the company. In this new society, everything is owned by the society (the people as a whole). If an inventor invents a new idea, that idea is owned by the society. He or she can not sell that idea to the outside world. If someone gets a business going producing income, and that person decides to leave the community, the business and all its customers stay with the community.

We know that works, 'cause that is how existing companies do it. Occasionally people cheat the system, but it is not much of a problem. If it was, it would be impossible to run any company.

That may sound wierd, that you invent something, and you don't own it, but rather the society owns it. The society owning it is basically equivalent to the people owning it, except individuals can't sell it for personal gain. It belongs to all the people (in our society). An idea might have been influenced by any number of people the inventor interacted with. It doesn't come from one person, it simply formulates in one person. That person should not be considered owner of it.

We are a society of equals. We respect the work everyone does as important. Maybe the hair stylist did a really good job and put the inventor in just the right mood for that idea to develop. Maybe the people who cleaned, or the interior decorator that helped inspire the mood. Maybe it was the work done on another product, which inspired the idea. Maybe it was a teacher who explained things just the right way. Everyone's work is important.

Tony

[GlassDraggon]

Very interesting ideas, they definitely deserve more than a 10 second reply. I'll mull it over for tonight. But in the mean time, keep them coming!

Ernest,
Speak for yourself. The only one being elitist or flaming is you.

[Leo]

Tony, those are some interesting ideas, good thinking. Now let’s see...


That greed is what is destroying the world, not humans. Our only hope of preventing the Earth's destruction, is in creating a new society, now, before it is too late.

The damage done by greed in many ways to the earth is not really looking good. Millions of people annually die from pollution, humans can totally destroy beautiful environments etc. and eventually things may come to a point where we have to make a revolution or the world will be destroyed but, well, we don't know when that will happen, and that is not our motive. It might be too late sometime in the future, but even if it was going to happen tomorrow, it wouldn't determine our actions. We have one goal and it is revolution, period. If the world will end billions of years later or tomorrow, it doesn’t make any difference.


Think about a tiny seed. If you look inside a seed, you'll see a tiny version of the adult plant. Now, replace that tiny plant with a small community. It doesn't necessarily look exactly the same as the matured version, but it has all the systems it needs. The other part of the seed is food. That would be the rest of us helping to support that community, with money or helping it to find work or whatever it needs to get it up and running.

Nice usage of metaphors but the fact that seed example is not really proving you right here. Sometimes the relationship between a seed and a mature plant is only the relationship between a seed and a mature plant. Like a child and his grown up version. The society doesn't always develop in the same way the individual does.


My plan is to start in a poor country, where the small amount of money we could provide actually means something. I am well aware that no one wants to give money, so we must work around that.

Now, here's the thing here: it is not money. Money is just a spectacle, a piece of paper. It is unimportant for the revolution. Individual slaves might be able to buy their freedom, maybe, but collectively slaves will never be able to purchase their freedom, because the very existence of the system depends on their slavery. What matters are the means of production.


Obviously, the idea of starting a small community is nothing new. Similar communities have been around for 2,500 years, and they operate on about 1/4th the resources. If they could produce as much income per person, that would mean very fast growth

I actually think starting the practice of sharing before the revolution would be a good idea. Yet, instead of starting from a small community I think an international organization that will practice the roots of the communal life in its circles would be much better. The movement must grow as a united opposition of workers. A small society will be crushed by the capitalists when it is big enough to seem dangerous to capitalists.


What was missing was a decision making system which allows the community to produce income and new technology. Democracy blocks creative thinking. Democracy is needed in some cases, but we must be aware of its problems. We can not expect an inventor to invent, if he or she needs to get approval for a new idea in a democratic or consensus based system. A system which can not create new technology, will not succeed.

That is where communes fail. They are much more efficient, using about 1/4th the resources for living, but they don't generate income or technology very well. That is because they have a very bad decision making system. Many use direct democracy (where everybody votes), which is in reality an authoritarian system. It is the group having authority over the individuals, controlling them, preventing them from developing technology or income sources. That is what makes communes so poor.


There are most definitely more preferable options then direct democracy. Self governce is in the core of communism, but not only individuals should govern themselves individually, but also collectives should govern themselves collectively.


Ants use a system where every individual is free to decide where to go to find food. Then when they find it, they share the information with the others. The result, is ants even with their pathetic intelligence, raise crops and livestock. Some raise various species of fungus. Others farm aphids for the sugary sap they give off, literally carrying them to and from the plants. Other ants keep other insects for work. That is technology far beyond any other animals in the animal kingdom. We marvel at chimpanzees, 'cause they use tools, but there's a far cry from tools to agriculture. Think about how difficult it would be to engineer a bridge across a river? Worse yet, with a material only 20 times as strong as it's weight. What a nightmare that would be for a human, but ants do it, and extremely fast. That is not instinct, every bridge must be engineered, every time theres problems to solve.
My system is patterned after the ants. To try to get as close as we can to what they do. The ants have a system which is tested and known to be extremely successful. For every person on Earth, there's about 10 pounds of ants. Individual freedom, is where it is at.

Good thinking over there, but also remember the necessity of cooperation between human beings to produce goods. What I think would happen in the communist society of the future is this: there would be collectives formed by individuals who want to cooperate. Those collectives can be factories, farms, hospitals etc. Each collective will send a member to weekly commune meetings who is randomly selected and who can’t be selected again until everyone else goes to the meeting. Also as a member of the community, representatives in the collectives will mostly talk about production and distribution issues, what is needed etc. But here’s the thing: there is nothing stopping individuals who can produce by themselves (artists, inventors, writers etc.) from working alone. They would also be able to attend meetings, by themselves.


On the inside the community operates one way, with the people pretty much isolated from Capitalism. On the outside though, the community interfaces with capitalism. All communes are this way, it is well tested and works well. That is nothing new.

Of course the problem comes here when the commune actually is dangerous to the capitalist system, as I mentioned above.


My resources are a 100 person construction company in the Philippines, two people to help me there (we are going to convert that into this type of community). Another person in the USA who wants to start a community there, a small group in Europe, who would like to start something but lack money, and a whole bunch of product ideas and a customer who needs some molding done. That could be turned into money for the cause. I'm self employed, I work over the Internet, which is a big resource also, 'cause I might be able to find more work to get people in the Philippines working and producing income to feed our communities. I do plastic mold design.

I realize that few people want to give any money, but let us not allow ourselves to consider ourselves poor because of that. Let us look to our collaborative resources. Let's all work together on this. Share our information. What are your skills? Are you in a position to help us get work, if we can set up some machines or work by Internet or whatever? Would you volunteer time to the project? Using the time to work overtime and volunteering that extra income would be better most likely though, 'cause people in the Philippines can work a long time, maybe even a week on one hour's worth of overtime.

Are you all talk, or do you want to do something?

We are a society of equals. We respect the work everyone does as important. Maybe the hair stylist did a really good job and put the inventor in just the right mood for that idea to develop. Maybe the people who cleaned, or the interior decorator that helped inspire the mood. Maybe it was the work done on another product, which inspired the idea. Maybe it was a teacher who explained things just the right way. Everyone's work is important.

I would think such communities would be a good practice, but they need to be a part of an international workers opposition, a unitary revolutionary movement. The key to overthrow capitalism is workers standing up against it, united. But seeds of the communist society must be thrown into the ground before the revolution itself, because those seeds will be a part of the revolution.

So here’s my question: would you and communities like yours be a part of an international workers opposition, a unitary revolutionary movement, an association between producers to globally challenge capitalism, or do you just want your isolated paradise?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 02:23 PM
Capitalism is based on the idea of using a persons greed or self interest to motivate them. The problem with doing that, is by basic reward training, it teaches them to become much more greedy. That greed is what is destroying the world, not humans. Our only hope of preventing the Earth's destruction, is in creating a new society, now, before it is too late. Here's how:
Yes, greed contributes to the existence of capitalism, but capitalism is more than a human condition or emotion.


Think about a tiny seed. If you look inside a seed, you'll see a tiny version of the adult plant. Now, replace that tiny plant with a small community. It doesn't necessarily look exactly the same as the matured version, but it has all the systems it needs. The other part of the seed is food. That would be the rest of us helping to support that community, with money or helping it to find work or whatever it needs to get it up and running.

Why would anyone do that? Or more importantly why should anyone do that?

All you have demonstrated in this metaphor is that you both accept the need for money and for the use of labour. Where would this money come from and what work should we be finding for people?

My vision of a future society is one without money and without having to sell your labour? If someone came to my community and said "let me help you find a job" I'd tell them to fuck off!


My plan is to start in a poor country, where the small amount of money we could provide actually means something. I am well aware that no one wants to give money, so we must work around that.

First of all there are organisations that exist already which go to "poor" countries and help within communities, both with providing labour and with financial support. That isn't a new idea. If you google you will find many.

Secondly, you have not provided an argument that explains why this is a good thing?


Obviously, the idea of starting a small community is nothing new. Similar communities have been around for 2,500 years, and they operate on about 1/4th the resources. If they could produce as much income per person, that would mean very fast growth.

How is that a good thing?

Also, how do you propose to safeguard against the emergence of a class of people who exploit others so that these "resources" and "growth" goes to them? Or, how do you safeguard from "greed"?


What was missing was a decision making system which allows the community to produce income and new technology.

How was it missing?


Democracy blocks creative thinking.

What do you mean by democracy and why does it block creative thinking? Indeed, why is that even important?


My system is patterned after the ants. To try to get as close as we can to what they do. The ants have a system which is tested and known to be extremely successful. For every person on Earth, there's about 10 pounds of ants. Individual freedom, is where it is at.

Your "system" doesn't explain how we would destroy capitalism and the state? Granted, maybe you don't want to destroy those things but that isn't clear either?

What do you expect will happen to the system we already have?


On the inside the community operates one way, with the people pretty much isolated from Capitalism. On the outside though, the community interfaces with capitalism. All communes are this way, it is well tested and works well. That is nothing new.

So your system means to maintain capitalism? What do you mean when you say that we "interface" with capitalism? Do you mean in regards to trade? How do you think your goods and services will be provided to you?


To boost that isolation, we do as much self reliance as we can efficiently. Our communities will grow their own food, for example, rather than buying everything. To boost that isolation even further, we link up with other communities. With those which are willing, we share technology, income and products. With others we might just share products or work collaboratively.

How do you expect to defend your communities when the state attempts to assert its control over you? Land tax and income tax for example?


Our percentage of self reliance goes up as our population grows. With more and more self reliance, we become less and less dependent on Capitalism. When we become 100 percent self reliant, we will be totally free.

You seem to be discussing capitalism in the abstract. Capitalism isn't just something "out there" it's the system of economics which maintains our means of subsistence.

Quitting your job and going to live in a commune isn't going to stop capitalism from existing. It just means that it will re-organise itself to accommodate it's perpetuation.

Plus, why do you expect that millions of people will suddenly decide to quit their jobs and come and live on a commune?

What is necessary is that these means of subsistence come under the control of the working class. Instead of opting out of these modes of production and living on a farm, why don't we take control of them?


An individual can live 100 percent self reliant. It is difficult, but it can be done.

Why would I want to? We already have the technology which means that my food can be provided for me without me having to grow it individually?


I look outside, and I see the streets are desperately in need of repairs. There's uncovered manholes everywhere, where children could fall in and die. Why? Is it because I'm in a poor country? Don't think poverty. There's many many people here who have no work. There is tons of work that needs to be done here. Why is the work not being done?

Because it's not in the interests of the ruling class to do it?


It is not a matter of not having enough money. It is a matter of not having enough collaboration. Let us learn from this lesson. Let us collaborate, pool our resources, so that we can create what could not have been created otherwise.

I agree that this is a good way to create an understanding and a culture of resistance against capitalism and the state, but ultimately the only progressive way we can maintain our existence, create equality and progress our standards of living is by taking control of the means of production and re-organising them.

That requires more than pooling resources.


Are you all talk, or do you want to do something?

I think people want to do something yes. But they shouldn't do what you're proposing.

[Antpower]

So here’s my question: would you and communities like yours be a part of an international workers opposition, a unitary revolutionary movement, an association between producers to globally challenge capitalism, or do you just want your isolated paradise?

Yes, very definitely. We must eliminate capitalism completely. This is not about starting one small community. This will be many communities in many different countries, and we'll try to fly under the radar, so to speak, as long as possible.

The enemy has seen thousands of communities like this start up. They will see us as no threat at all. The only way they'd see us as a treat, is if they understood what how the system works. If they understood they'd want to join us.

About 30 people a day see my plan, and almost none of them show any interest. It is that way with any new idea, good or bad, makes no difference. Only the complexity of the idea determine what percentage of people like it or not.

Those 30 people a day are people who are more likely to understand, 'cause they think similarly. They already believe in a lot of the things they need to understand, to understand this idea. The enemy thinks totally differently. That don't stand a chance at all of understanding why this would be any different than all the thousands of other communities out there.

To them, we'll appear as nothing to worry about. We'll have many communities and many individuals in many different countries by the time they start to take notice. At that point, they'll start to harrass us with legal measures for a while. Eventually they'll realize that that is not working, and they'll try stronger measures.

Keep in mind, the enemy has a few people doing the thinking. We will have thousands, maybe millions of people thinking by that time.

I got all sorts of plans for defence. I got some pretty nasty, completely non-violent and oddly enough, completely legal economic warfare plans, for example. I don't tell anyone about that stuff though, 'cause it might be necessary for it to come as a complete surprise to them. You'll just have to trust me on that. Anyway, it is not like you have a better plan, do you?



Why would anyone do that? Or more importantly why should anyone do that?

All you have demonstrated in this metaphor is that you both accept the need for money and for the use of labour. Where would this money come from and what work should we be finding for people?

My vision of a future society is one without money and without having to sell your labour? If someone came to my community and said "let me help you find a job" I'd tell them to fuck off!

An example of someone misunderstanding. Ok, let's try again. Money is only a problem when it is used to motivate people. The community needs money to buy machines and resources, to do work and provide for its people. That money is not given to the people, it is kept by the community. It is not used to motivate the people. The work is not in the form of a job, rather it is in the form of subcontract work, which can be done in a poor country over the Internet. That kind of work could substitute for money. It is simply easier to find work, than money, to start this community. Once the community gets going, it will not need anyone finding it work or money, it'll support itself as well as rapid growth.



What do you mean by democracy and why does it block creative thinking? Indeed, why is that even important?

Without creative thinking, a community will not produce income effectively, and will therefore be poor. Even if that community is 100% self reliant, it will not be able to find solutions to problems, and so will have difficulty producing enough food and other needs.

Modern communes use direct democracy, which means everyone votes on everything, or consensus, which means on all issues they require 100% agreement from everyone, or elected leaders. These systems all block creative thinking so varing degrees.

Say for example, someone wants to buy 4 GB of ram to make a work computer run faster, so he can get more work done. What do you think the odds are of getting 100% agreement on something like that? Say someone wants to spend $150,000 on a machine to mold plastic parts. What are the chances of getting 100% agreement on that? All it takes is one environmentalists who objects to the use of plastics, and that idea is out. The community therefore lacks that capability of producing income.

My system allows individuals to make decisions. That is the key to a successful system.



So your system means to maintain capitalism? What do you mean when you say that we "interface" with capitalism? Do you mean in regards to trade? How do you think your goods and services will be provided to you?


No, my system will eliminate capitalism all together. It only interfaces to help it get off the ground. Once it gets up to a certain size, it'll drain the capitalist system dry. Capitalist corporations require customers to survive. When those customers are gone, they'll go bankrupt.



Quitting your job and going to live in a commune isn't going to stop capitalism from existing. It just means that it will re-organise itself to accommodate it's perpetuation.

Plus, why do you expect that millions of people will suddenly decide to quit their jobs and come and live on a commune?

What is necessary is that these means of subsistence come under the control of the working class. Instead of opting out of these modes of production and living on a farm, why don't we take control of them?


I'm not asking people to quit their jobs. Money is one of the things we need to make this happen. It would be helpful for people without jobs to get jobs, so they can help us get this thing started.

There are many millions of people who work for about $50 a month. We'll offer those people a good enough life, that it'll probably be drawing people from wealthy countries as well. Do you really think those people are going to say no?

Part of the plan is taking control of businesses and farms. In fact, we already took control of one company with 100 workers. It only costed a few thosand dollars. That is the advantage of a poor country ;) That strategy gives us regular working people, not people who hate society, but people who are used to working. It also gives our community a source of starter income. It also creates much faster growth.

Tony

[anti-authoritarian]

I think its a good idea, maybe too many animal world analogy's tho!

But we can't exactly go and take over a poor country without having a revolution first. (seeing as how they're mostly run by dictators)

[Janus]

So basically, you want to establish a new commune? How are you gonna attract 100 million people so quickly? Furthermore, I don't think the comparison with ants is really appropriate.

Have you read Walden II by Skinner? Some of the principles in there are quite similar to yours. You should check it out.

[Leo]

We must eliminate capitalism completely. This is not about starting one small community. This will be many communities in many different countries, and we'll try to fly under the radar, so to speak, as long as possible.

The enemy has seen thousands of communities like this start up. They will see us as no threat at all. The only way they'd see us as a treat, is if they understood what how the system works. If they understood they'd want to join us.

About 30 people a day see my plan, and almost none of them show any interest. It is that way with any new idea, good or bad, makes no difference. Only the complexity of the idea determine what percentage of people like it or not.

Those 30 people a day are people who are more likely to understand, 'cause they think similarly. They already believe in a lot of the things they need to understand, to understand this idea. The enemy thinks totally differently. That don't stand a chance at all of understanding why this would be any different than all the thousands of other communities out there.


Here's the thing: we want workers to join us, as much as possible. So our enemies will know what we are doing from the beginning. They will always know what we are doing. It is not that they don't understand your idea, they do understand it, but they ignore it. This is what they do. This is the first stage of their assult on any project. As Gandhi said, then they will laugh at you, then they will fight you. Will you win afterwards? That's the question we are trying to answer here.

When the labor is united, capital will give victory to labor because it is dependent on labor. An association of the international proletariat should not be limited to those communes, or in other words it should not be limited to resources of the association, because it is obvious that it will fail if it does. In order to build communism (or whatever we call it) in the global level, we need to have all means of production in the world and we can't buy them, we can't buy freedom, we have to take it.

Communal practices will of course be important, they will show the world what we will do if nothing, and we will want to make people hear about this, yet the movement can't depend on pre-revolution communal life.


I got all sorts of plans for defence. I got some pretty nasty, completely non-violent and oddly enough, completely legal economic warfare plans, for example. I don't tell anyone about that stuff though, 'cause it might be necessary for it to come as a complete surprise to them. You'll just have to trust me on that. Anyway, it is not like you have a better plan, do you?

If labor is united, it won't really need to defend itself collectively. Individuals will of course defend themselves if attacked, but we will simply say that workers own everything collectively and if capitalists don't want to join us, we won't give them anything we produced. There is nothing capitalists can do after that point. We will literally take everything they have and there will be nothing that can possibly stop such a massive force. What I plan is how to get to the point where the masses are united.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:51 PM
An example of someone misunderstanding. Ok, let's try again. Money is only a problem when it is used to motivate people.
It wasn't a case of misunderstanding; it was a case of me not agreeing with you.

Money is also a useless means of exchange and encourages value which is easily exploited by people.


The community needs money to buy machines and resources, to do work and provide for its people.

No they don't.

These things exist, it's not a question of buying them, it's a question of taking them.


It [money] is not used to motivate the people.

But someone is taking the money you use to buy these machines and most likely making a profit from it? Who are making these machines and resources in the first place?


It is simply easier to find work, than money, to start this community.

That's because capitalism depends on a ruling class and a working class. There is less money and more work because that's how rich people get rich.


Once the community gets going, it will not need anyone finding it work or money, it'll support itself as well as rapid growth.

You're not making any sense.


Without creative thinking, a community will not produce income effectively, and will therefore be poor.

I thought you didn't want to make money?


Modern communes use direct democracy, which means everyone votes on everything, or consensus, which means on all issues they require 100% agreement from everyone, or elected leaders. These systems all block creative thinking so varing degrees.

You mean they have the potential of stopping you from getting your way? Consensus decision making exists in order to find compromise and direct democracy exists to allow all people to participate in the decision making process.

Are you saying that compromise and full participation are undesirable?


Say someone wants to spend $150,000 on a machine to mold plastic parts. What are the chances of getting 100% agreement on that?

But if they live in a community they are responsible to a collective of people. The basis of communalism is co-operation as a collective not trying to get your own way.


My system allows individuals to make decisions. That is the key to a successful system.

But your system negates collectivism in favour for the individual getting their own way. How is that a community?

Communities share responsibility and have to make compromises in order to maintain that community.





So your system means to maintain capitalism? What do you mean when you say that we "interface" with capitalism? Do you mean in regards to trade? How do you think your goods and services will be provided to you?


No, my system will eliminate capitalism all together.

I don't see how when you have already stated that the system of profit will continue to exist.


Once it gets up to a certain size, it'll drain the capitalist system dry.

Even if that were possible, "capitalists" wouldn't allow it to happen. Why would they?


Capitalist corporations require customers to survive.

No necessarily. Capitalism adapts to its environment in order to survive. If customers became scarce capitalists would find a new way to make a profit. The most likely one is war.


I'm not asking people to quit their jobs.

So you want people to stay in their exploitative jobs then?


Money is one of the things we need to make this happen. It would be helpful for people without jobs to get jobs, so they can help us get this thing started.

You're making absolutely no sense at all. I mean, I understand your idea, but it already exists. There are communes all over the world that operate in the way you are describing, but capitalism still exists?


There are many millions of people who work for about $50 a month. We'll offer those people a good enough life, that it'll probably be drawing people from wealthy countries as well.

But people don't need to work in a commune in order to survive?


Do you really think those people are going to say no?

Yes. I know I would.


Part of the plan is taking control of businesses and farms. In fact, we already took control of one company with 100 workers. It only costed a few thosand dollars.

So you own a factory?


That strategy gives us regular working people, not people who hate society, but people who are used to working. It also gives our community a source of starter income. It also creates much faster growth.

So you use workers in order to generate profit so that you can build a commune to give them work on it so they can live equitably?

Are you mad?

[Zero]

Originally posted by "The Anarchist Tension"
These things exist, it's not a question of buying them, it's a question of taking them.

He is trying to start a communal village, not get arrested.

Though I'd like to see what Antpower has to say about the other criticisms.

[Antpower]

How are you gonna attract 100 million people so quickly?

See Growth Rate Explained (http://conceivia.com/about-us/growth-rate-explained/)



But someone is taking the money you use to buy these machines and most likely making a profit from it?

Let them profit. It doesn't hurt you if someone else profits. Eventually the community will produce everything it needs, but until then it must buy what it needs.




Once the community gets going, it will not need anyone finding it work or money, it'll support itself as well as rapid growth.

You're not making any sense.

Once the community gets going, it will not need people outside the community, finding it work or money. The people inside the community will find all the work and money needed at that point. It only needs help to get off the ground.




Without creative thinking, a community will not produce income effectively, and will therefore be poor.

I thought you didn't want to make money?

Income is not necessarily money. Income can be food or production of things. If there is no creative thinking in the community, it will suffer. If there is no creative thinking, there can never be a new society. All these things take creative solutions.



Are you saying that compromise and full participation are undesirable?

I am not talking about comprimise. Compromise is good. What do you mean by "full participation"? Do you want people 100 miles away to be a part of the decision process of deciding whether or not to play rock and roll music in the computer room next to you? Do you want every computer room to have the same identical rules? Do you want the community to decide what kind of cloths you wear? Some communes do that.

The typical commune hand picks people for members. It doesn't allow regular people in. I am talking a commune which will have no rules on membership. Like any city, who ever wants to move in, moves in.

Do you want people to decide what you are allowed to think? That is basically what Direct Democracy and Consensus Decision Making does. To a lesser degree of course, and most people don't notice it, but the people who must make creative decisions in their work which involve doing things (not art) do notice it. Inventors can not do their work under those systems.



But your system negates collectivism in favour for the individual getting their own way. How is that a community?

Communities share responsibility and have to make compromises in order to maintain that community.

How is a city a community? This is not a hippy commune I'm talking about. This is not something which requires hand selected members. This is a commune which regular people can live at.



No necessarily. Capitalism adapts to its environment in order to survive. If customers became scarce capitalists would find a new way to make a profit. The most likely one is war.

What are you worried about? You sound like you want a revolution, why not let them start the war? Wouldn't that be a good way to rally our people?



So you want people to stay in their exploitative jobs then?

Let go of your hatred, and help us try to accomplish something. Complaining doesn't accomplish anything.




Money is one of the things we need to make this happen. It would be helpful for people without jobs to get jobs, so they can help us get this thing started.

You're making absolutely no sense at all. I mean, I understand your idea, but it already exists. There are communes all over the world that operate in the way you are describing, but capitalism still exists?

Communes like I am talking about do not exist, anywhere in the world. With out this new type of decision making system, a commune will not be very successful. All existing communes use either Direct Democracy, Consensus, or leaders. All those systems block creative thinking, and therefore greatly reduce the success of the community.



So you own a factory?

Not personally, but I guy I know does, and he wants to convert it into a new society.



So you use workers in order to generate profit so that you can build a commune to give them work on it so they can live equitably?

Are you mad?

There are some 15,000 people in worker controlled companies in Argentina, who litterally bought the companies from their masters, to do sort of the same sort of thing.

Are those 15,000 people mad?

Wouldn't it be more crazy to sit there and do nothing, and wait for the Earth to be destroyed, but either nuclear weapons, global warming, or running out of oil? If we run out of oil, wars will start, and wars lead to nuclear wars.

Tony

[Antpower]

I think its a good idea, maybe too many animal world analogy's tho!

But we can't exactly go and take over a poor country without having a revolution first. (seeing as how they're mostly run by dictators)

We can operate communes. That is all we need to do for now. They let communes be, 'cause they've seen thousands of them, and see no reason to fear them. With fast growth rate, they will not know what hit them, until it is too late. The power is always in the hands of the people, even in dictatorships. Get enough people on your side, and the government can not stop it.

The laws are on our side. There are international laws. I'm not talking about going to a country where there's no laws at all. I'm talking in countries where there are laws, they may be mostly controlled by greedy politicians which try to bypass the laws, but there are laws. In those countries, they'll try to pretend to follow the laws, and that will be their downfall.

Tony

[OneBrickOneVoice]

It's funny that we're talking about communes because over the summer I'm going to go live in a commune sort of thing :)

[The Feral Underclass]

I think the idea isn't necessarily bad, but in terms of destroying capitalism it is idealistic conjecture that will achieve absolutely nothing of [revolutionary] value, and it's this after all that one should be inclined to.

As an anarchist communist also it does nothing to further class struggle or the creation fo a communist society and on those grounds I oppose your idea.

[GlassDraggon]

After reading all the comments and thinking about it. I have to admit that you (Antpower) sound like you're just trying to set yourself up for a bigtime leadership position. Unlike The_Anarchist_Tension, I believe that leadership is necessary if we're ever going to have a successful revolution. But those leaders definitely should not be motivated for personal reasons. Here's a question: if someone equally dedicated came along and was better able to lead and organize this...would you step down and let them? Would you be able to recognize someone who is better suited than yourself? Or would you be blinded by your desire to lead? If you didn't have a great deal of difficulty answering those questions, then you didn't answer them.

You also said "you'll just have to trust me". I don't trust people that I don't know. Why should I or anyone else trust you when we don't know you? Sure, it glorifies you if you present some genius tactical maneuver against the Cappies. But what happens when they simply assassinate that leader? It'd deal a big blow to the revolution. Whereas, if everyone knew those tactics- there'd be nobody to target for assassination and it would be much more dangerous for the Capitalists. Besides, you're only keeping secrets from the people. You can't keep secrets from the Capitalists.

The other thing is, don't put any faith in "International Law". Who's going to enforce it against the United States?

Just a few thoughts,
-R

[Antpower]

I don't believe in leaders who have legal authority. If the people follow someone who has natural leadership skills, that is ok. We must not give that leader any legal authority though. If someone does not follow a leader, they can not be punished.

If someone came along who was a better leader than me, I'd follow or work with them. I have no desire to lead. My motivation is not to lead, my motivation is to survive, to prevent nuclear war.

The problem with telling people some things, is what do you think the chances are that there is no CIA agent reading this stuff? They'll put an agent in a group of 15 people who meet once a week to discuss politics. Do you think I have an agent watching me?

Anyone could come up to me, and pretend to like my ideas and want to help, and they could be an agent. How do I get around that? I don't worry about it. If a CIA agent comes and helps me, I'll accept the help. That might be the only help I get :unsure: Don't want to turn that down, do I?

The fact of the matter is, it would not help at all to tell all my plans right now. It would just add to the list of things to argue about. I am not here to argue. I'm here to find people who are willing to help. I would think one would be more willing to respect the intelligence of another, when they don't know of a better plan.

You should not be asking yourself it this plan will work or not. You should be asking yourself if there is a chance of it working, or if it has a better chance of working than any other plans you know of. We must learn to collaborate, or we will get no where.

Tony

[Leo]

The problem with telling people some things, is what do you think the chances are that there is no CIA agent reading this stuff? They'll put an agent in a group of 15 people who meet once a week to discuss politics. Do you think I have an agent watching me?

Anyone could come up to me, and pretend to like my ideas and want to help, and they could be an agent. How do I get around that? I don't worry about it. If a CIA agent comes and helps me, I'll accept the help. That might be the only help I get. Don't want to turn that down, do I?

The fact of the matter is, it would not help at all to tell all my plans right now. It would just add to the list of things to argue about. I am not here to argue. I'm here to find people who are willing to help. I would think one would be more willing to respect the intelligence of another, when they don't know of a better plan.

You should not be asking yourself it this plan will work or not. You should be asking yourself if there is a chance of it working, or if it has a better chance of working than any other plans you know of. We must learn to collaborate, or we will get no where.

Well, there is no reason to get that paranoid about the CIA. No matter what they will always know, get used to it <_< . We are living in a global police state. The only way to keep something secret from the government passes from keeping it secret from the masses too, that&#39;s not what we want.

As for your plan, I have said this before: it can&#39;t work by itself, it is not communes that will overthrow capitalism, it is the masses, their uprising. Communal life must a part of the workers uprising, and therefore it will become seeds for the communist society. Now, I wonder what you&#39;ll say to that.

[Guest]

A sudden uprising of masses that occured locally but not globally would most likely fail to develop. A sudden uprising of masses globally could not be coordinated, and would most likely fail.

The development of marxism publically will take place through propaganda, obviously, with speech and literature, and the economic development would probably happen as AntPower describes it-- communes. But there would have to be several, and unless they cooperate with each other they will be excluded from the necessary growth of resource (a self contained commune in a capitalism is nonsense), and would disintegrate.

I suppose that if several communes contracted their economy with existing countries that are not yet in a full capitalist mode of economy, could stimulate international branches of communisms which trade among each other...completely independent from the surrounding capitalist economies.

It might be possible for a commune of great enough strength (numbers) and economic power to enter into this kind of relationship with a communist country, or many.

Half of the pressure on the existing communisms is the economic isolation from the rest of the world, and this literally forces them into trade, which will eventually require a morphing into capitalism to maintain the fast paced economy behavior. You all know the drill.

But what if, for the next seventy-five years, capitalism was used against itself to establish this kind of plan. For instance, the communes would be created as land was bought by private investors, and "set up" all over the world. They would be integrated into a trade system that complimented the existing resources within each individual commune. Once a certain size was established, the ideology would have a stronger influence on the neighboring capitalisms and the commune populations would increase rapidly. Eventually, the communist system will have equalled if not surpassed the level of wealth held by the remaining capitalisms....and surrender would become inevitable.

So we need to write up a dissertation and give it to Castro, to convince Cuba to assist us in setting up these branches. Any volunteers?

[Epoche]

Sorry, that was me.

Forgot to log in.

[Antpower]

The development of marxism publically will take place through propaganda, obviously, with speech and literature, and the economic development would probably happen as AntPower describes it-- communes. But there would have to be several, and unless they cooperate with each other they will be excluded from the necessary growth of resource (a self contained commune in a capitalism is nonsense), and would disintegrate.

I&#39;m not just talking about one issolated commune. I&#39;m also talking a world wide network of multilple communes, with varing degress of opt in collaboration. Some will do full income and technology sharing. Others would be some lesser degree.


But what if, for the next seventy-five years, capitalism was used against itself to establish this kind of plan. For instance, the communes would be created as land was bought by private investors, and "set up" all over the world. They would be integrated into a trade system that complimented the existing resources within each individual commune. Once a certain size was established, the ideology would have a stronger influence on the neighboring capitalisms and the commune populations would increase rapidly. Eventually, the communist system will have equalled if not surpassed the level of wealth held by the remaining capitalisms....and surrender would become inevitable.

This is fairly close to what I&#39;m saying, but with a slight difference. Rather than private investors to buy the land and set up these communes, we need private investors only for the very first commune. Actually, we only need them for the first commune, but they will likely provide a major boost after the first commune as well though.

Anyway, once the first commune is set up, it will produce income, which will be used to spawn additional communes. Remember, a commune is basically a worker controlled company, with a few other changes which make it much more efficient. With a slight change to the system used by regular communes, we end up with a commune which can produce income at almost the same rate as people in wealthy countries working as individuals can produce. Maybe even more.

It would not be impossible for a comune with 100 people to produce &#036;3 million a year. Such a commune could easily live off of &#036;1 million a year, in luxury. That would leave &#036;2 million a year for growth and creating new communes. What would &#036;2 million a year do in a poor country, where many people are forced to live on &#036;50 a month. How many new people could we acquire with &#036;2 million a year/100 people in our communes? Remember, when we have 1000 people, our potential grows to &#036;20 million. When we have 10,000 people, our potential grows to &#036;200 million a year or more. Growth is logrithimic.

The communes I create will have reproduction build into their rules. They must put a percentage of their income into growth (new members) and reproduction (creating new communes).

Private investors will be inspired to help start more communes too, and will be spured on by the success of the first commune. It is very difficult to get the money for the first commune, &#39;cause it is only an idea. No one knows if it will work, and it is very difficult to get people to understand it. Later on, it becomes something real, something they can see working, something they can not argue with. At that point, many many more people will invest. So growth comes from two factors, the communes income, and outside investors who believe in the cause. Actually, another source is outside investors who want to survive the comming economic or environmental collapse. They&#39;ll be a major source of investment.

We will produce a lot of automatic and computer controlled machines. Those machines will be distributed to other communes in the network, giving them ability to produce income. They will also be sold at a fairly high price and with slightly reduced functionality to the Capitalists. &#39;Course, the price won&#39;t be high in comparason to other machines on the market, but high in comparison to what it costs to make them.


So we need to write up a dissertation and give it to Castro, to convince Cuba to assist us in setting up these branches. Any volunteers?

Money is extremely difficult to come by, &#39;cause people with money usually are opposed to this. Castro would be a possible exception to this rule, and aslo Hugo Chavez (President of Venezuela). Hugo Chavez has shown interest in helping the worker controlled factories in Argentina. I&#39;ve heard he also is willing to talk to regular people. I&#39;ve also heard he is good friends of Castro. Both of these two leaders, while they have made their mistakes, I would say they probably want to do what is best for their people. Both have shown by their actions, by going to cheap hotels and such, that they consider themselves to be regular people just doing their job, to the best of their abilities. All of us have made mistakes in doing our jobs.

Castro and Chavez are in control of a lot of money, of which we&#39;d only need a tiny little fraction to make this thing happen. I have a whole lot of seperate issues which they would be able to help a whole lot on. If we could make contact with either of these two leaders, we would have it made.

Another way to get money for this cause, by the way... Worker controlled factories produce products. Those products could be sold to people who believe in Communism. Wouldn&#39;t people who believe in Communism prefer to buy products (if they were the same price and quality) from Communist companies, rather than Capitalist companies? If we were to give them that option, wouldn&#39;t they jump at it? That is another part of my plan. We need to organize a world wide collaborative effort to make this thing happen. We can use Capitalism against itself to make this happen.

Tony