When the communism comes...

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

First thing I'm going to do is to help myself to all of this free produce, hoard it, and everyone can go starve unless they give me infinite use of their womenfolk and labor, and go work in mines or something to dig me lots of gold and diamonds. I will then melt down the gold, issue currency, allocate myself the biggest batch, and I shall rule as king of the world.

Since there will be no government in a communist system, I doubt anyone will be able to stop me. Too bad for communism eh? See how unsustainable it is?

Now, you could just say, "well, we could kill you mr jerk?" See, problem with that is most people are as greedy as me, (but not quite), so you're gonna have to wipe out like 80% of the population before your utopia has any chance of success. Opps, you didn't think of that eh?

[BobKKKindle$]

If the system that you describe ever came into existance, society would have gone through an extended cultural revolution beforehad. This transitional stage between the Capitalist mode of production, and its accompnaying political institutions and values, and Socialism, is known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this period, all the elements of bourgeois society - the commodification, the cruelty, the isolation, and the greed - will have been eradicated and new socialist values will have been instilled in thier place. Humans are capable of both collective/cooperative behaviour and compeitive and isolationist behaviour, and the dominate strand depends upon the material conditions in which we live.

I also find is extremely ironic that you describe Communism as unsustainable, because if there is anything Capitalism is not, it is sustainable. The overpowering drive to accumulate Capital in pursuit of profit is responsible for environmental destruction and political imperialism.

[Jazzratt]

:lol: Wow, just, wow. Read a little bit about the political theories you're arguing against before you spout stupid crap. It only makes you look like a fucking stupid troll :lol:

[Rollo]

And I'll shoot you and take your hordes and re-distribute it. See how that works?

[Iroquois Xavier]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:28 AM
And I'll shoot you and take your hordes and re-distribute it. See how that works?
Took the words right out of my mouth amigo! :D

[Zero]

Oh noes! The Communism is coming! I can see the red on the horizon right now!

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 05:01 AM
If the system that you describe ever came into existance, society would have gone through an extended cultural revolution beforehad. This transitional stage between the Capitalist mode of production, and its accompnaying political institutions and values, and Socialism, is known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this period, all the elements of bourgeois society - the commodification, the cruelty, the isolation, and the greed - will have been eradicated and new socialist values will have been instilled in thier place. Humans are capable of both collective/cooperative behaviour and compeitive and isolationist behaviour, and the dominate strand depends upon the material conditions in which we live.

I also find is extremely ironic that you describe Communism as unsustainable, because if there is anything Capitalism is not, it is sustainable. The overpowering drive to accumulate Capital in pursuit of profit is responsible for environmental destruction and political imperialism.
do communists actually believe this can be accomplished? are you a religous type? you seem pretty faithful to me.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Oct 3 2006, 02:02 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Oct 3 2006, 02:02 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 05:01 AM
If the system that you describe ever came into existance, society would have gone through an extended cultural revolution beforehad. This transitional stage between the Capitalist mode of production, and its accompnaying political institutions and values, and Socialism, is known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this period, all the elements of bourgeois society - the commodification, the cruelty, the isolation, and the greed - will have been eradicated and new socialist values will have been instilled in thier place. Humans are capable of both collective/cooperative behaviour and compeitive and isolationist behaviour, and the dominate strand depends upon the material conditions in which we live.

I also find is extremely ironic that you describe Communism as unsustainable, because if there is anything Capitalism is not, it is sustainable. The overpowering drive to accumulate Capital in pursuit of profit is responsible for environmental destruction and political imperialism.
do communists actually believe this can be accomplished? are you a religous type? you seem pretty faithful to me. [/b]
We believe that one of the purposes of the ongoing revolution is to raise class consiousness, and that by doing so we will create a situation in which anyone who tries such a thing will be arrested and punished by thecommunity.

[Leo]

Now, you could just say, "well, we could kill you mr jerk?" See, problem with that is most people are as greedy as me

Only capitalists can be as greedy as you are.


Since there will be no government in a communist system, I doubt anyone will be able to stop me. Too bad for communism eh? See how unsustainable it is?

Oh, how nice for you to worry about the future of communism, but don't worry, you won't survive the period where workers hunt down the likes of you in the streets.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 07:52 AM
First thing I'm going to do is to help myself to all of this free produce,
That's what it's for!


hoard it,

Shouldn't be a problem. With none of the wealth stagnating in the hands of a greedy 10% of the worlds population, individuals should generally live much more materially satisfactory lives. They certainly wont be starving. Especially as resorces will be controlled democratically.


and everyone can go starve unless they give me infinite use of their womenfolk

Women aren't a commodity like "Cars" and "big tvs" you fucking wanker.


and labor, and go work in mines or something to dig me lots of gold and diamonds. I will then melt down the gold, issue currency, allocate myself the biggest batch, and I shall rule as king of the world.

Except. You wont receive fuck all unless you contribute. You simply wouldn't be able produce anything, everyone else owns the means of production, not you. So you have no leverage to command any authority.


Since there will be no government in a communist system, I doubt anyone will be able to stop me.

You wont need to be stopped, your plan wont work.


Now, you could just say, "well, we could kill you mr jerk?" See, problem with that is most people are as greedy as me

Fine, communism is about fulfilling human desires. Your contribution to society is clearly in your own selfish interest. As you can operate all the factories and industries yourself, you need other people to survive. Though you're more than free to live off your own instincts and hunt rabbits. and as you said yourself, people are greedy, why would they give up such liberty, democracy, and equality, for a life of submission to your 'iron rule' - especially when you cant actually make them. They'll tell you to go and rot and stop giving you anything, as you are in no danger, and aren't contributing to the society.

But something tells me you're a troll and so my effort was wasted typing this.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 07:52 AM
First thing I'm going to do is to help myself to all of this free produce, hoard it, and everyone can go starve unless they give me infinite use of their womenfolk and labor, and go work in mines or something to dig me lots of gold and diamonds. I will then melt down the gold, issue currency, allocate myself the biggest batch, and I shall rule as king of the world.

Since there will be no government in a communist system, I doubt anyone will be able to stop me. Too bad for communism eh? See how unsustainable it is?

Now, you could just say, "well, we could kill you mr jerk?" See, problem with that is most people are as greedy as me, (but not quite), so you're gonna have to wipe out like 80% of the population before your utopia has any chance of success. Opps, you didn't think of that eh?
The womenfolk would kick your ass, and us evil commies would take re-distribute your hoarded resources.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 09:00 AM
Oh noes! The Communism is coming! I can see the red on the horizon right now!
permission to quote (in sig)?

[Zero]

Granted =).

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 04:52 PM
The womenfolk would kick your ass, and us evil commies would take re-distribute your hoarded resources.
That would be government.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
That would be government.
It's vigilantism. Would you call all vigilantes politicians?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Oct 3 2006, 08:19 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Oct 3 2006, 08:19 PM)
t_wolves_fan
That would be government.
It's vigilantism. Would you call all vigilantes politicians? [/b]
Not exactly. Vigilantes are out for themselves, while a communist posse would be out in the name of "society".

They are similar but surely you see the point.

[red team]

Not exactly. Vigilantes are out for themselves, while a communist posse would be out in the name of "society".

They are similar but surely you see the point.

How are things different now? If you're rich enough and cunning enough you can hide all the money you accumulate in offshore tax shelters while leveraging the same huge amount of money you've accumulated to "persuade" armies of poor peon workers do your bidding to make you even more rich. While at the same time those huge number of poor people have to come back to you for more torture (work I mean) because they'll eventually have to spend everything paid out in wages just to purchase the material products needed for living. I don't even have to mention where all that paid out wages end up back again after the ordinary worker/consumer make purchases for necessities do I?

[t_wolves_fan]

How are things different now?

This question means you agree with me that the forced redistribution by "vigilante" communists merely replaces the functions of government.

Thank you for your support.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 07:52 AM
Now, you could just say, "well, we could kill you mr jerk?" See, problem with that is most people are as greedy as me,
Which is why we can rely on them to kill you for us.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
Not exactly. Vigilantes are out for themselves, while a communist posse would be out in the name of "society".

They are similar but surely you see the point.
How is killing someone hoarding wealth not in the interest of everyone? These vigilantes are looking out for their own livelihood and are at the same time helping out the rest of society.

[Avtomatov]

WTF, when did any communists say there was no government in communism?!?!

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 3 2006, 07:15 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 3 2006, 07:15 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 04:52 PM
The womenfolk would kick your ass, and us evil commies would take re-distribute your hoarded resources.
That would be government. [/b]
Lol, women resisting rape is government? :lol:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by RedStar1916+Oct 3 2006, 10:08 PM--> (RedStar1916 @ Oct 3 2006, 10:08 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 07:15 PM

[email protected] 3 2006, 04:52 PM
The womenfolk would kick your ass, and us evil commies would take re-distribute your hoarded resources.
That would be government.
Lol, women resisting rape is government? :lol: [/b]
She's obviously going against the man's individual right to rape her, duh.

(For those who don't understand the intricacies of sarcasm and/or irony: I was taking an extreme cappie position. (Extreme, though it is similar to one I have actually come across.))

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 05:05 PM
WTF, when did any communists say there was no government in communism?!?!
Today.

Socialism is by definition a workers' state.
Communism is by definition a stateless, classless society.

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+Oct 3 2006, 10:20 PM--> (MonicaTTmed @ Oct 3 2006, 10:20 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 05:05 PM
WTF, when did any communists say there was no government in communism?!?!
Today.

Socialism is by definition a workers' state.
Communism is by definition a stateless, classless society. [/b]
Government is not the same as the State.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Avtomatov+Oct 3 2006, 06:04 PM--> (Avtomatov @ Oct 3 2006, 06:04 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:20 PM

[email protected] 3 2006, 05:05 PM
WTF, when did any communists say there was no government in communism?!?!
Today.

Socialism is by definition a workers' state.
Communism is by definition a stateless, classless society.
Government is not the same as the State. [/b]
Eh?

From dictionary.com search results:

Government - The agency or apparatus through which an individual or body functions and exercises authority.

State - the group of people comprising the government of a sovereign political entity

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+Oct 3 2006, 11:16 PM--> (MonicaTTmed @ Oct 3 2006, 11:16 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:20 PM

[email protected] 3 2006, 05:05 PM
WTF, when did any communists say there was no government in communism?!?!
Today.

Socialism is by definition a workers' state.
Communism is by definition a stateless, classless society.
Government is not the same as the State.
Eh?

From dictionary.com search results:

Government - The agency or apparatus through which an individual or body functions and exercises authority.

State - the group of people comprising the government of a sovereign political entity [/b]
Dumbass 12 year old, go read The State and Revolution by Lenin. The communist definition is different then the bourgeoise one.

The State and Revolution by Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm)

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Whitten+Oct 3 2006, 09:57 AM--> (Whitten @ Oct 3 2006, 09:57 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 02:02 PM

[email protected] 3 2006, 05:01 AM
If the system that you describe ever came into existance, society would have gone through an extended cultural revolution beforehad. This transitional stage between the Capitalist mode of production, and its accompnaying political institutions and values, and Socialism, is known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this period, all the elements of bourgeois society - the commodification, the cruelty, the isolation, and the greed - will have been eradicated and new socialist values will have been instilled in thier place. Humans are capable of both collective/cooperative behaviour and compeitive and isolationist behaviour, and the dominate strand depends upon the material conditions in which we live.

I also find is extremely ironic that you describe Communism as unsustainable, because if there is anything Capitalism is not, it is sustainable. The overpowering drive to accumulate Capital in pursuit of profit is responsible for environmental destruction and political imperialism.
do communists actually believe this can be accomplished? are you a religous type? you seem pretty faithful to me.
We believe that one of the purposes of the ongoing revolution is to raise class consiousness, and that by doing so we will create a situation in which anyone who tries such a thing will be arrested and punished by thecommunity. [/b]
yeah simply punishing law breakers hasn't really done much to stop crime from occuring. (this is a whole government cirminal justice department were talking about too, assuming that communities could hold the same capacity which is absurd)

[RedCommieBear]

Originally posted by Avtomatov+Oct 3 2006, 11:20 PM--> (Avtomatov @ Oct 3 2006, 11:20 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:20 PM

[email protected] 3 2006, 05:05 PM
WTF, when did any communists say there was no government in communism?!?!
Today.

Socialism is by definition a workers' state.
Communism is by definition a stateless, classless society.
Government is not the same as the State.
Eh?

From dictionary.com search results:

Government - The agency or apparatus through which an individual or body functions and exercises authority.

State - the group of people comprising the government of a sovereign political entity
Dumbass 12 year old, go read The State and Revolution by Lenin. The communist definition is different then the bourgeoise one.

The State and Revolution by Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm)[/b]
From what I've gathered, the difference betweent he state and government are as follows:

Government: Can be a system of decentralized workers councils, or a voluntary self-government. The direct democracy of a chess club could be considered government.

State: Centralized, Coercive, non-voluntary.

[RevMARKSman]

Dumbass 12 year old

Now we see why this particular member is restricted.

<--- http://www.adamsweb.us/master_obvious.JPG

[Zero]

Wow, thats like the third time someone has indirectly dissed you because they equate young with stupid.

[BreadBros]

Most people aren&#39;t greedy (in the sense you use the word), they&#39;re self-interested. Competition arises when the goods at stake are restricted or very scarce. To take your example of foodstuffs, if such produce was equally available and distributed to all, there would actually be an overabundance of it. There would be no reason to be greedy and hoard it all for yourself as it would be a waste of energy and time. Moreover, I doubt 80% of the population would join you. The idea that the mass of individuals would give up assured distribution of commodities in a classless society in order to go back to a hierarchical society where there is a high probability that they would have less than they do now goes completely against the self-interest of human beings. Chance are you&#39;d just get your ass kicked or fail horribly. There will be individuals who would attempt to regress to class society and would pose a threat, namely major international capitalist institutions, but some internet troll? come now, lol...

[red team]

How are things different now?


This question means you agree with me that the forced redistribution by "vigilante" communists merely replaces the functions of government.

Thank you for your support.

I&#39;m not really sure I support you because I don&#39;t know your position, but I&#39;m pretty sure you won&#39;t be the one supporting my position being that I want to do away with the entire monetary system.

First of all there&#39;s nothing to redistribute since money is not a measure of wealth to any objective, quantifiable degree. You pay me money and people accept it because people psychologically assume it is useful as a medium for notarising debt in a trade. If there&#39;s nothing scarce to trade for it then money is useless. Further, money isn&#39;t consumed and doesn&#39;t depreciate even when the previously traded item have been consumed or is degraded from use. Next, money flows back to the people who have accumulated enough to pay wages for production even when what has been expended in labour for that production has been purchased and therefore any further claims of debt upon those who issue the money for wages has been effectively nullified by the act of the labourers claiming back the results of the their own labour with the exchange of wage tickets representing debts for labour. So why do we still recognize people with an abundance of money as being wealthy when in fact in reality an abundance of money means having all your debts repaid by all the people doing work for you?

If it&#39;s any sort of a lasting social revolution then money won&#39;t be used anymore since it&#39;s never a device for measuring material wealth in the first place. In that case there&#39;s nothing to redistribute. The rich can kiss the value of their fictitious paper money goodbye.

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

Love Underground.


Fine, communism is about fulfilling human desires. Your contribution to society is clearly in your own selfish interest. As you can operate all the factories and industries yourself, you need other people to survive. Though you&#39;re more than free to live off your own instincts and hunt rabbits. and as you said yourself, people are greedy, why would they give up such liberty, democracy, and equality, for a life of submission to your &#39;iron rule&#39; - especially when you cant actually make them. They&#39;ll tell you to go and rot and stop giving you anything, as you are in no danger, and aren&#39;t contributing to the society.

Actually, love underground, these greedy people you speak of aren&#39;t going to revolt for altruistic reasons. Their greed isn&#39;t suddenly going to &#39;switch off&#39; when they have enough of what they need. They are going to want more. You know it. I know it. Let&#39;s stop this pretence.

I mean your only option is to kill them, which would imply a government of some sort is required. Communism is thus either paradoxically impossible, or fundumentally immoral if you do take the kill option. Marx never really understood this as he only saw exploitation from one side of the fence.

[RevMARKSman]

The communist definition is different then the bourgeoise one.


The only reason we commies get to define communism is because Marx coined the term himself thus had the privilege of defining it.

I have this sneaking suspicion that the words "government" and "state" were defined before Marx, Bakunin, Proudhon, Engels, Kropotkin, Lenin, or any other leftist theorist was born.

But if you think we can randomly define our own words now, I leave you with this thought: penny intolerable rollback passed spike polygons entirety idea gradient.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Avtomatov+Oct 3 2006, 11:20 PM--> (Avtomatov @ Oct 3 2006, 11:20 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:20 PM

[email protected] 3 2006, 05:05 PM
WTF, when did any communists say there was no government in communism?&#33;?&#33;
Today.

Socialism is by definition a workers&#39; state.
Communism is by definition a stateless, classless society.
Government is not the same as the State.
Eh?

From dictionary.com search results:

Government - The agency or apparatus through which an individual or body functions and exercises authority.

State - the group of people comprising the government of a sovereign political entity
Dumbass 12 year old, go read The State and Revolution by Lenin. The communist definition is different then the bourgeoise one.

The State and Revolution by Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm) [/b]

the communists can have whatever definition they wish about it. They are still wrong.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:03 PM
How is killing someone hoarding wealth not in the interest of everyone? These vigilantes are looking out for their own livelihood and are at the same time helping out the rest of society.
:D

This is word parsing to a Clintonian degree.

"I want to smash the state because the state is coercive but if someone hordes something a posse of communism vigilantes will compel...I mean take back what was horded and redistribute it to the people in their name."

If it walks and talks like a duck, it&#39;s a duck.

Good try though sport.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 07:08 AM
You know it. I know it. Let&#39;s stop this pretence.
Yea, and someone&#39;s going to have to tell them they&#39;re stuck with the shit they&#39;ve got, only 1 in every 1000000 people will "hit the big time" and due to inheritance we&#39;re slowly returning to wealth and power based on bloodline. So their greed won&#39;t be satisfied in capitalism will it&#33;


I mean your only option is to kill them,

You&#39;d like to nail that one down wouldn&#39;t you. You&#39;d love to prove Communism=genocide. But the square peg just wont fit through the round hole. Capitalism is the murderous ideology. One person dies of starvation every 1.3 seconds - and millions more of curable diseases. IBM made the holocaust practically possible, and the soviet economy was advised by capitalists.



Communism is thus either paradoxically impossible, or fundumentally immoral

Well, that&#39;s a bold assertion, and as you have gone no way toward backing up or proving these ramblings, they will remain such.


if you do take the kill option. Marx never really understood this as he only saw exploitation from one side of the fence.

Yea, because the workers really exploit the bosses eh?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 4 2006, 02:44 PM


Communism is thus either paradoxically impossible, or fundumentally immoral

Well, that&#39;s a bold assertion, and as you have gone no way toward backing up or proving these ramblings, they will remain such.


This board backs it up.

Communism the theory says there will be no government, yet communists on this very board are saying there will be governmental functions undertaken to enforce a non-materialist attitude among the populace (i.e. prevent or punish hording).

Communism says there will be no class, yet it requires the formation of a class of overseers to run the dictatorship of the proletariat. And we&#39;re supposed to believe these overseers will simply hand over power peacefully and willfully once the revolution has achieved a level they&#39;re satisfied with.

:lol:

You should have stopped believing in fantasies at about age 12 or so.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:50 PM
Communism the theory says there will be no government, yet communists on this very board are saying there will be governmental functions undertaken to enforce a non-materialist attitude among the populace (i.e. prevent or punish hording).

In what way does the existence of a police force or laws mean there will be a government? These bodies will be controlled directly by the people, in an ultra-democratic fashion. There will not be a governing body.


Communism says there will be no class, yet it requires the formation of a class of overseers to run the dictatorship of the proletariat

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the stage before communism. But I would probably take your side and say that this "dictatorship" is a pretty shit idea, regardless.


And we&#39;re supposed to believe these overseers will simply hand over power peacefully and willfully once the revolution has achieved a level they&#39;re satisfied with.

Of course not, that&#39;s why I oppose the vanguard.


You should have stopped believing in fantasies at about age 12 or so.

I did. I realised from a very early age that striking gold is an absurd and almost surreal fantasy. And I also realised the state and other big businesses did not function in the interests of me, my family, my friends or my class, but in their own. What&#39;s taking you so long?

[t_wolves_fan]

In what way does the existence of a police force or laws mean there will be a government?

You answered your own question. Are you being obtuse on purpose or are you really this dense?

Laws & Police Force = governmental functions = government exists. Walks & talks like a duck, therefore it is a duck.

Your game of semantics fools nobody, except maybe yourself.



These bodies will be controlled directly by the people, in an ultra-democratic fashion. There will not be a governing body.

Impossible. You still need rules of order. You need people to carry out administrative tasks. You need something besides a decision by the people to enforce the supposed will of the people.

I know in your head this all sounds realistic and logical, but it isn&#39;t. Organized society requires some forms of control that you probably don&#39;t even understand.


I did.

No you haven&#39;t. Giving you credit for your age, you don&#39;t know how things actually work in the real world. That means you&#39;re naive, not a liar.



I realised from a very early age that striking gold is an absurd and almost surreal fantasy. And I also realised the state and other big businesses did not function in the interests of me, my family, my friends or my class, but in their own. What&#39;s taking you so long?

1. Striking gold is hardly necessary to achieve a decent standard of living. Your complaint seems to be that you&#39;re not on equal ground with the rich. Tough. Deal with it.

2. The state and big business are not obligated to act solely in your interest. Sometimes you won&#39;t get your way. It is physically impossible for everyone to get their way all the time, a concept teenagers often have not yet grasped.

[Tungsten]

Whitten

We believe that one of the purposes of the ongoing revolution is to raise class consiousness, and that by doing so we will create a situation in which anyone who tries such a thing will be arrested and punished by thecommunity.So much for the promises of freedom under communism.

Love Underground

Fine, communism is about fulfilling human desires.
I desire freedom from the initiation of force. Will you fulfil that?

Your contribution to society is clearly in your own selfish interest.
So is yours and everyone elses. You&#39;re persuing communism because you think you personally have something to gain from it.

You&#39;d like to nail that one down wouldn&#39;t you. You&#39;d love to prove Communism=genocide. But the square peg just wont fit through the round hole.
It&#39;s not very smart to post a comment like that after several of your comrades have said that killing people like him would be something met with approval.

Capitalism is the murderous ideology.
One which forbids murder?

One person dies of starvation every 1.3 seconds - and millions more of curable diseases.
And that&#39;s all the fault of the system no doubt. If someone is locked in a room and starves to death- that&#39;s murder. If you&#39;re injected with a disease and die from it- that&#39;s murder too. Natural causes aren&#39;t murder. The western world is under no obligation to drop everything and become slaves to the third and you have no right to force it to be.

IBM made the holocaust practically possible, and the soviet economy was advised by capitalists.
Yeah and Henry Ford is responsible for all air polution and traffic accidents.
Jazzrat

She&#39;s obviously going against the man&#39;s individual right to rape her, duh.
I don&#39;t think you understand where libertarians get the idea of individual rights from, or what makes something an individual right. You think we employ the socialist method of inventing rights to various commodities off the cuff, for the sake of expedience, convenince or buying votes. We don&#39;t.

(For those who don&#39;t understand the intricacies of sarcasm and/or irony: I was taking an extreme cappie position. (Extreme, though it is similar to one I have actually come across.))
You don&#39;t understand the extreme cappie position- like you don&#39;t understand cappie anything. You ridicule a position you&#39;re too ignorant to grasp in the first place.

[Jazzratt]

Ah Tungsten, you incromprabable fuckwit, what delights do you have for us today?


Originally posted by fuckwit
She&#39;s obviously going against the man&#39;s individual right to rape her, duh.I don&#39;t think you understand where libertarians get the idea of individual rights from, or what makes something an individual right. You think we employ the socialist method of inventing rights to various commodities off the cuff, for the sake of expedience, convenince or buying votes. We don&#39;t.[/b][/quote] Sorry, but adopting an arrogant tone in your arguments doesn&#39;t make them any more valid, wanker. I understand fully the concept of individual rights and believe that most of the cappie ones are perefectly valid. Apart from the ones that allow you to become a fucking leech - the ones that allow you to own the means of production as a prrivate individual and then hire them out to workers in a stupid and ineffeciant market economy. Could you also provide back up for your straw-socialist I&#39;d like to know, for example, why votes matter to this paticular strawman and after that I&#39;d like you to explain which individual rights the straw-socialist has made up. After that I&#39;d like you to die, but we can&#39;t have everything can we?


You don&#39;t understand the extreme cappie position- like you don&#39;t understand cappie anything. You ridicule a position you&#39;re too ignorant to grasp in the first place. You think socialists want votes. You think communism is a tyranny. You think that the price system is defensible. Somehow, depsite this I&#39;m the ignorant one. You stupid, stupid twat.

[BreadBros]

Their greed isn&#39;t suddenly going to &#39;switch off&#39; when they have enough of what they need.

Assuming that what you mean by greed is unnecessary hoarding (which is the initial example you gave) then simple common sense shows that it would. Certain trivial amounts of goods are already given away for free. Various restaurants give out free condiments, but if you decided to try to take all of them for yourself in order to force individuals to engage in business transactions with you, people would 1. Likely laugh at you, 2. Smack you and take the stuff back, 3. Ignore your attempts to force them into business with you because they could far more easily and cheaply go to some other location and get what is a free commodity.


They are going to want more.

Everyone wants more goodies and toys to play with it (to a certain extent, it&#39;d be stupid to try and vast amounts of produce I couldn&#39;t eat myself since it would just rot and my time/effort would be a waste, but in terms of new technologies, leisure/recreation-oriented goods, etc). The question is an economic decision. Capitalism creates a highly unequal social hierarchy with the masses at the bottom. Will that mass of people choose to live in a society where they are assured a fairly high standard of living, or will they take the risk of regressing back to the old society, where they may end up far wealthier but it is more likely that they will end poorer? Undoubtedly some will take the risk, however the majority will likely prevent them from destablizing the society because it puts their economic interests in peril.


I mean your only option is to kill them, which would imply a government of some sort is required. Communism is thus either paradoxically impossible, or fundumentally immoral if you do take the kill option. Marx never really understood this as he only saw exploitation from one side of the fence.

You don&#39;t have to kill them, you can just physically prevent them from dispossesing others and hoarding, or if they prove icorrigible, banish them from the society and let them start their own somewhere. Neither of those requires a government, they merely require the action of a group of individuals in agreement with each other, no codified laws, no monopolization of force or power, none of that is in necessity in such a scenario.



Communism the theory says there will be no government, yet communists on this very board are saying there will be governmental functions undertaken to enforce a non-materialist attitude among the populace (i.e. prevent or punish hording).

I take it you haven&#39;t read Marx, as his entire proposition rests on the premise that human beings are economically-oriented individuals who always have their self-interest at stake. A far more troublesome problematic for Marxism would be if individuals didn&#39;t act in their economic self-interest, if, for example it was a natural inclination of human beings to give up material well-being in order to be ruled over or some such scenario. Hoarding isn&#39;t usually even in an individuals self-interests in a capitalist society, unless its done on an extremely broad scale such as the monopolization of production of a certain commodity, and it stands to be less so in a communist society. Hoarding goods that are of no practical use to you is usually a result of a pathology or in some cases can be used as a means to serve some subconscious fetish or complex (such as that "hedonist" guy who seemed to be sexually gratified out of coercing women to do things they didnt want to for money).


Communism says there will be no class, yet it requires the formation of a class of overseers to run the dictatorship of the proletariat. And we&#39;re supposed to believe these overseers will simply hand over power peacefully and willfully once the revolution has achieved a level they&#39;re satisfied with.

Marx never said anything about a beauracratic class or a "dictatorship of the proletariat". That concept arises out of Leninist theory, which many here discount due to the fact that it is completely contrary to Marx&#39;s theories in many ways.


You answered your own question. Are you being obtuse on purpose or are you really this dense?

Laws & Police Force = governmental functions = government exists. Walks & talks like a duck, therefore it is a duck.

Your game of semantics fools nobody, except maybe yourself.

The existence of either of those is not a part of Marx&#39;s theories, nonetheless, neither predicates the existence of government. Laws and policing can both be taken upon in democratic form.


Impossible. You still need rules of order. You need people to carry out administrative tasks. You need something besides a decision by the people to enforce the supposed will of the people.

I know in your head this all sounds realistic and logical, but it isn&#39;t. Organized society requires some forms of control that you probably don&#39;t even understand.

Actually a decision by the people is all that is necessary to enforce their will. If a group of individuals decided that no one among them should wear a red shirt, then one of them did, would they then have to codify some sort of consituation, sit down for deliberation and delegate tasks? No, one or all of them would take it upon their initiative to kick them out.

You should actually read something about the historical origins of government. The historical necessity of government arose in increasingly complex societies that had a division of labor and needed an organizational entity to manage them. In those societies the knowledge of how to manage systems was usually only available to an elite. Capitalism, by dividing society into an ownership and productive class has gotten past that. First and foremost, since the ruling class is now merely an ownership class instead of knowledgable elite, the complete self-managent of society by the proletariat is possible. The other extraneous functions of government are the result of class society, whether it be the ills that arise from such a society (poverty and crime) or the efforts of the ruling class to maintain it&#39;s position (the repressive functions of government). I actually think the progression past governmental organization is already occuring and will likely be completed before progression past class society will. The roots of it are already occuring and are the result of capitalist reforms themselves. Historically the state has been used as a tool by capital interests, however for at least around 50 years now it has been increasingly seen as a barrier and been more problematic than helpful. Thus the subversion of the state entity by international trade groups is increasingly happening. The profit to be had in globalized capital and labor markets and through repealment of prohibitive laws is also great.


1. Striking gold is hardly necessary to achieve a decent standard of living. Your complaint seems to be that you&#39;re not on equal ground with the rich. Tough. Deal with it.

I think the whole point is that he is dealing with it. First you claim that communism will not work because it goes against self-interest. But then when someone decides to explicitly act in their self-interest and attempts to fight for an economic structure that will maximize their wealth you claim that they should just "deal with" the existing economic structure which goes against their self-interest. Did we upset you because we aren&#39;t playing by the rules you set out? According to Marx, history is the struggle of classes vying for their self-interest. There is no God or metaphysical entity dictating that capitalist society, in existence in part of the world for a few hundred years, is the end-all be-all of historical development and that the "rules" laid out by it in terms of it&#39;s structure in any way reflect a reality of human society. The subversion of this society is just as likely as the subversion of the feudal system by the bourgeois class was.


2. The state and big business are not obligated to act solely in your interest. Sometimes you won&#39;t get your way. It is physically impossible for everyone to get their way all the time, a concept teenagers often have not yet grasped.

I dont think anyone here said they were, thats more of a liberal/social-democrat concept, that capitalism can be made to be "nice" and "comfortable" for everyone. Under capitalism its not "somtimes you wont get your way", its that "usually you wont get your way". However, as you yourself have noted, human beings are materially-minded beings who act in their self-interest. If someone doesnt get what they want, its in their self-interest to fight or do everything possible to get it, its called acting in your interest, so I&#39;m not really sure what lesson we are supposed to get from your 2nd-rate philosophizations on the nature of life. Are we supposed to stop acting in our self-interest just because you said so? Because you laid out some rules and among these lies the idea that self-interest is good, but not when it goes against the existing society? Haha, sorry pal, try again, hasn&#39;t worked historically, doubt it will now.

[Janus]

So it looks like we have a new ebeneezer, huh? :lol:


Since there will be no government in a communist system, I doubt anyone will be able to stop me. Too bad for communism eh? See how unsustainable it is?
Either the local militia will or the community itself will discover you soon enough.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
This is word parsing to a Clintonian degree.

"I want to smash the state because the state is coercive but if someone hordes something a posse of communism vigilantes will compel...I mean take back what was horded and redistribute it to the people in their name."

If it walks and talks like a duck, it&#39;s a duck.

Good try though sport.
...What? You really are an idiot, you know.

Government doesn&#39;t exist so long as there&#39;s no centralized force that ensures the rules are followed. If, for example, a crack dealer molests a little girl - the little girl&#39;s family is entitled to kill the molester. While in capitalism, situations like this land Anarchists in jail for "assault."

Anyone is allowed to ensure that their life or the lives of others isn&#39;t threatened. Hoarding of wealth is threatening the very survival of every single member of the community. Naturally, the greedy bastard needs to be punished.

There&#39;s no "posse" of people who just run around punishing people as they see fit. If those people did ever exist, they too would likely find themselves being punished because they&#39;ll likely slip up and do something they shouldn&#39;t have. Everyone watches everything in communism. Everyone is a police officer, administrator, accountant and fireman. When everyone is "the government" then there is essentially no government.

It’s like saying communism has a class system because the proletariat still exists. Based on your posts, you seem like the kind of retard who would make a claim like that though...

[Red_Syphilis_Steve]

assholes like these push me further to the edge of being Authoritarian.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:33 AM
assholes like these push me further to the edge of being Authoritarian.
Which assholes?




Government doesn&#39;t exist so long as there&#39;s no centralized force that ensures the rules are followed. If, for example, a crack dealer molests a little girl - the little girl&#39;s family is entitled to kill the molester. While in capitalism, situations like this land Anarchists in jail for "assault."

So you&#39;re saying anarchists are crack dealing rapists? Why was a little girl around a crack dealer anyway? Sounds pretty shady to me.

[red team]

You don&#39;t understand the extreme cappie position- like you don&#39;t understand cappie anything. You ridicule a position you&#39;re too ignorant to grasp in the first place.
You think socialists want votes. You think communism is a tyranny. You think that the price system is defensible. Somehow, depsite this I&#39;m the ignorant one. You stupid, stupid twat.

Why even waste your time debating with human cattle (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1086428)?

No doubt these same people are the ones responsible for the stupid consumer warnings on the cups of coffee reading "Caution: Contents are hot". Somewhere someone had to be stupid enough to expect the coffee to be cold. They are the consumers who smile stupidly as their right&#39;s are being removed one by one. They believe whatever the mass media tells them.

They&#39;ll cling to the safety of the barnyard rather than embrace the freedom outside even when led to the slaughter as in volunteering to fight their wealthy ruler&#39;s wars for them.

You might as well be talking to a cow :lol:

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 07:52 AM
First thing I&#39;m going to do is to help myself to all of this free produce, hoard it, and everyone can go starve unless they give me infinite use of their womenfolk and labor, and go work in mines or something to dig me lots of gold and diamonds. I will then melt down the gold, issue currency, allocate myself the biggest batch, and I shall rule as king of the world.

Since there will be no government in a communist system, I doubt anyone will be able to stop me. Too bad for communism eh? See how unsustainable it is?

Now, you could just say, "well, we could kill you mr jerk?" See, problem with that is most people are as greedy as me, (but not quite), so you&#39;re gonna have to wipe out like 80% of the population before your utopia has any chance of success. Opps, you didn&#39;t think of that eh?
you are a moron. and your post are good comedy.

[RNK]

Best.
Thread.
Ever.

[Janus]

Best.
Thread.
Ever.
If this continues, we may have found a replacement for ebeneezer. :lol:

[Rollo]

Nobody can replace ebaneezer. His threads were way too stupid to even have anybody qualify to be his successor. Altho this guy is a close second.

[getoutofhere]

Originally posted by thisguyisatotaljerk
First thing I&#39;m going to do is to help myself to all of this free produce, hoard it, and everyone can go starve unless they give me infinite use of their womenfolk and labor, and go work in mines or something to dig me lots of gold and diamonds. I will then melt down the gold, issue currency, allocate myself the biggest batch, and I shall rule as king of the world.

Since there will be no government in a communist system, I doubt anyone will be able to stop me. Too bad for communism eh? See how unsustainable it is?

Now, you could just say, "well, we could kill you mr jerk?" See, problem with that is most people are as greedy as me, (but not quite), so you&#39;re gonna have to wipe out like 80% of the population before your utopia has any chance of success. Opps, you didn&#39;t think of that eh?

damn, real stupid jerk of the highest level... :angry:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:31 AM
Nobody can replace ebaneezer. His threads were way too stupid to even have anybody qualify to be his successor. Altho this guy is a close second.
I dunno, if this bloke stays around a little longer a posts a few more vacuos topics he may well surprise us.

[Rollo]

Your lies make baby raptorjesus cry.

[Jazzratt]

Oh hush you Ebeneezer fanboy.

[Rollo]

Only time will tell.

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

funny how i remind you guys of Ebeneezer.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 11:37 AM
funny how i remind you guys of Ebeneezer.
haha, number one rule of being a sockpuppet: don&#39;t reveal yourself you stupid fuckwit.

[Rollo]

He&#39;s obviously not ebaneezer.

[Jazzratt]

whoops, rather large face omlette there.

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Oct 5 2006, 11:41 AM--> (Jazzratt @ Oct 5 2006, 11:41 AM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 11:37 AM
funny how i remind you guys of Ebeneezer.
haha, number one rule of being a sockpuppet: don&#39;t reveal yourself you stupid fuckwit. [/b]
Firstly, Rollo is correct. I am not this "Ebeneezer" guy you speak of.

On the other hand, IF I was Ebeneezer, would I actually admit it?

Guess you guys will never know and will be still wondering on your deathbeds eh?

Oh, and Jazzratt, what exactly did I "reveal"?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 06:16 PM
Laws & Police Force = governmental functions = government exists. Walks & talks like a duck, therefore it is a duck.

Well, if that&#39;s you&#39;re definition of government, fine. Then there will be a government. But everybody will be in it.

Your game of semantics fools nobody, except maybe yourself.


You still need rules of order

Depends on the laws and rules really. But in some cases they are legitimate, yes.


You need people to carry out administrative tasks

You need people to carry out tasks, full stop. And people will.


You need something besides a decision by the people to enforce the supposed will of the people.

Why? - Ok, so whatever political system, you will always get your Charles Manson or whatever, so consequently you need some way of isolating these people from everybody else. And thus we have an "authority" but one that is accountable, and run by the people as a whole. But who would object to such common sense? Stopping a child run out in front of a car is an expression of authority, Bakunin put it well;

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? No&#33; in the case of boots, i defer to the authority of the bootmaker"


1. Striking gold is hardly necessary to achieve a decent standard of living. Your complaint seems to be that you&#39;re not on equal ground with the rich. Tough. Deal with it.

It&#39;s necessary to achieve a standard of living that isn&#39;t based on precarity and insecurity. Fortunately I live in the first world, so my poverty is not as dire as for people of my class in other nations. But nonetheless I live in a very unpredictable position, and may well be on the dole or eating in soup kitchens in the next couple of years. I don&#39;t want to be on equal ground with the rich, I want to kill the parasitic bastards.


2. The state and big business are not obligated to act solely in your interest.

You&#39;re telling me? instead they act in their own interests at the expense of human interests.


Sometimes you won&#39;t get your way. It is physically impossible for everyone to get their way all the time, a concept teenagers often have not yet grasped.

But the thing is, im not out to "get my own way" that&#39;s why I am a proponent of direct democracy, in which everyone has a chance to put their view out there. On the contrary, it is the rich who want to get their own way, and are more than willing to kill, maim, rape, slaughter enslave, cut up and feed out anyone who stands in their way. Who&#39;s the immature one here?

[Tungsten]

Jazzratt

Apart from the ones that allow you to become a fucking leech - the ones that allow you to own the means of production as a prrivate individual and then hire them out to workers in a stupid and ineffeciant market economy.
That could encompass pretty much any individual right. Why don&#39;t I have the right to employ people and why don&#39;t they have the right to earn a living working for me? You don&#39;t support the idea of people having the right to live their lives as they see fit providing they don&#39;t threaten anyone- you only their right to live how you see fit.

Could you also provide back up for your straw-socialist I&#39;d like to know, for example, why votes matter to this paticular strawman
I thought you were an advocate of democracy?

You think socialists want votes.
The democratic ones do, the non-democratic just want blood.

You think communism is a tyranny.
Now where would I get an idea like that from? Maybe it&#39;s because I&#39;ve seen the desire for violence, torture and enslavement, all from the advocates of communism of one variety or another- and this is just a message board. What&#39;s it going to be like in practice?

You stupid, stupid twat.

We are what we eat.

And personal attacks in place of arguments only show how poorly equipped you are to provide a decent counter-argument.

[t_wolves_fan]

Well, if that&#39;s you&#39;re definition of government, fine. Then there will be a government. But everybody will be in it.

Everybody is in it now, unless you plan to let children vote on complex and important policy issues too.



You need people to carry out administrative tasks

You need people to carry out tasks, full stop. And people will.

Which people? Do you randomly assign people regardless of their intelligence and experience simply in the name of equality; or do you choose experienced professionals?

Would a professional bureaucratic class be allowed to get going? If so, how would that be different than it is now?

You do understand that many functions of government are not clear cut and simple, right?



You need something besides a decision by the people to enforce the supposed will of the people.

Why? -

It should be obvious, but without enforcement there is the strong possibility that people will simply refuse to or fail to implement decisions.


Ok, so whatever political system, you will always get your Charles Manson or whatever, so consequently you need some way of isolating these people from everybody else. And thus we have an "authority" but one that is accountable, and run by the people as a whole. But who would object to such common sense? Stopping a child run out in front of a car is an expression of authority, Bakunin put it well;

So you plan to call a communal vote on every person who is weird or creeps you out?

On what issues will your commune vote? Which issues will be private? Who decides? Your agenda could well reach 450 pages in large metropolitan areas, you understand. Better pack a lunch for your meetings.



"Does it follow that I reject all authority? No&#33; in the case of boots, i defer to the authority of the bootmaker"

Bootmaker says he&#39;s going to produce 250 pairs this year. Community needs 500. What happens?



1. Striking gold is hardly necessary to achieve a decent standard of living. Your complaint seems to be that you&#39;re not on equal ground with the rich. Tough. Deal with it.

It&#39;s necessary to achieve a standard of living that isn&#39;t based on precarity and insecurity.

No it isn&#39;t.


Fortunately I live in the first world, so my poverty is not as dire as for people of my class in other nations. But nonetheless I live in a very unpredictable position, and may well be on the dole or eating in soup kitchens in the next couple of years. I don&#39;t want to be on equal ground with the rich,

Explain your situation more fully. What steps have you personally taken to better your situation? Are there any decisions that in retrospect you could have made that would have produced better results? Or, at every single juncture have you been prevented from bettering yourself by a rich person. Serious question(s) here.

If you are on the verge of living under a bridge, why are you chatting on a message board?



2. The state and big business are not obligated to act solely in your interest.

You&#39;re telling me? instead they act in their own interests at the expense of human interests.

You are no different, really. You pursue what you think are "human interests" because it would benefit you - you&#39;ve admitted it yourself. Because you are on the precipice of poverty and homelessness, you want a system where you would not be in such a position.


But the thing is, im not out to "get my own way" that&#39;s why I am a proponent of direct democracy,

Of course you are. You want the political and economic system to be implemented that you want - so you are out to get your own way.

Further, your posts illustrate quite clearly that you believe that the system you want would likely make the decisions you would want it to make. That&#39;s inherent in what we advocate, since nobody would advocate a system that they think would work contrary to their beliefs.

You think the decisions would go your way because you believe the people would resemble YOU. You believe the working class resembles YOU, and that because you share the same class you would all be quite similar to YOU.

It&#39;s simple: YOU = working class = working class in charge = YOU in charge.



in which everyone has a chance to put their view out there.

They already do.



On the contrary, it is the rich who want to get their own way, and are more than willing to kill, maim, rape, slaughter enslave, cut up and feed out anyone who stands in their way. Who&#39;s the immature one here?

You are, because you lump all capitalists into this fantasy definition of who capitalists are and the depths to which they&#39;re willing to sink. Further, your immaturity is exposed by the unreality of the system which you propose and the clear belief you have that once implemented the system would work just like you would want it to.

Basically, you boil life down to a game with action figures that do exactly what you want. A child&#39;s fantasy.

[red team]

Could you also provide back up for your straw-socialist I&#39;d like to know, for example, why votes matter to this paticular strawman

I thought you were an advocate of democracy?

Tell me how the average uninformed cow is going to vote unless it&#39;s their pay cheques that&#39;s on the line? And even then if there&#39;s enough media propaganda they&#39;ll take away all their tax supported privileges because as any right-wing radio host would say, "its the evil government and their publicly funded services that make them poor", and the average working stiff who is paid enough for rent and food and little much else (ooh&#33; High tax bracket they&#39;re in&#33; :rolleyes: ) would believe it.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Rollo
So you&#39;re saying anarchists are crack dealing rapists? Why was a little girl around a crack dealer anyway? Sounds pretty shady to me.
No. I was actually referring to a real life situation where an Anarchist beat the shit out of a crack dealing child molestor and got put into jail for it. I did make that unclear though...

[Rollo]

Ah, makes sense now :P.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 07:52 AM
First thing I&#39;m going to do is to help myself to all of this free produce, hoard it, and everyone can go starve unless they give me infinite use of their womenfolk and labor, and go work in mines or something to dig me lots of gold and diamonds. I will then melt down the gold, issue currency, allocate myself the biggest batch, and I shall rule as king of the world.

Since there will be no government in a communist system, I doubt anyone will be able to stop me. Too bad for communism eh? See how unsustainable it is?

Now, you could just say, "well, we could kill you mr jerk?" See, problem with that is most people are as greedy as me, (but not quite), so you&#39;re gonna have to wipe out like 80% of the population before your utopia has any chance of success. Opps, you didn&#39;t think of that eh?
First, human nature is a fickle thing. It changes with the system you&#39;re in. For example slavery was perfectly normal until 150 years ago. Rascism was perfectly normal until 40 years ago. Your system and your upbringing shapes who you are and what your &#39;nature&#39; is.

Second, if you&#39;re starving everyone in your community besides for you, they&#39;ll revolt just like they did with capitalism :lol: same exact scenario except a lil different.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:33 PM

Marx never said anything about a beauracratic class or a "dictatorship of the proletariat". That concept arises out of Leninist theory, which many here discount due to the fact that it is completely contrary to Marx&#39;s theories in many ways.





Marx, it must be recalled, was a bookworm. He never had to deal with the reality of actually implementing a "socialist" community.

Lenin did.

The idea of the vanguard was to deaL with the reality that:

1. The capitalists and their lackeys were going to fight back.
2. The "people" may have differing ideas on how to go about building a socialist community. That difference of opinion can divide and obstruct the workers moving forward.

The vanguard idea was to keep the revolution on track. Something will need to be created by the workers to do this function.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:33 PM

Actually a decision by the people is all that is necessary to enforce their will. If a group of individuals decided that no one among them should wear a red shirt, then one of them did, would they then have to codify some sort of consituation, sit down for deliberation and delegate tasks? No, one or all of them would take it upon their initiative to kick them out.



Okay. So the socialist community will be one where everyone agrees with each other, under penalty of expulsion, arrest, murder ect.

So the minority opinion will be considered a hostile opinion, thus subject to sanction. It is your fervent hope (because that is all that it is), that no state or government or beauracratic apparatus will be neccessary to enforce the penalty on the non-conformist.

On the "Nationalists of Spain" thread, the claims that the Republicans supported the burning of churches and killings of priests was NOT something indicative of the Republic, but rather of actions outside the control of republic forces. Assuming such a claim is true, would you support such actions taken by the "community" against a minority hostile to the larger goals of the Republic?

What argument do you have against a proscribed penalty for those in the minority?

Can a minority also be considered workers who believe that the majority is wrong in what their intended actions are?

What limits are their on the power of the "people?" Limitless?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:21 AM
First, human nature is a fickle thing. It changes with the system you&#39;re in. For example slavery was perfectly normal until 150 years ago. Rascism was perfectly normal until 40 years ago. Your system and your upbringing shapes who you are and what your &#39;nature&#39; is.


Maybe so. But you will still have to deal with the reality of a world where "human nature" may not be where a socialist/communist may desire it to be.

So how not only get it there, but keep it there?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 12:20 PM
Okay. So the socialist community will be one where everyone agrees with each other, under penalty of expulsion, arrest, murder ect.


It pretty much seems to come down to that.

[t_wolves_fan]

I cannot help notice that when questions are asked about how things will work specifically, moving past high-level theoretical discussions, the responses drop of precipitously.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 01:23 PM
I cannot help notice that when questions are asked about how things will work specifically, moving past high-level theoretical discussions, the responses drop of precipitously.
Because they seem to say that the individual workers will make those decisions collectively, based upon their collective and individual circumstances.

The weakness with this is that it means that, for all intents and purposes, they have no program. So not only are they never "wrong," or that they never need to justify their views (four letter words are very common responses, but certainly not a substantive response) but they open themselves up to socialists who DO have a program.

[Tungsten]

ZX3

The weakness with this is that it means that, for all intents and purposes, they have no program.
The devil is in the details, as the old saying goes, and there are clearly a lot of devils at work when the question of how communism is going to work in practice crops up.

[Forward Union]

Voting people into government, doesn&#39;t put you in government. Especially when they don&#39;t act in your interests, but their own. A fact that you yourself admitted. In your last post.


Which people? Do you randomly assign people regardless of their intelligence and experience simply in the name of equality; or do you choose experienced professionals?

I can&#39;t really say with any accuracy, as it would be up to each community to run society on it&#39;s own terms. I would postulate that all industries would have a fluid workforce, of individuals that enter and leave workplaces in accordance with their preference, against the general needs of the community. It would make sense for the people with the expertise and passion for a certain job to end up doing it. In a way this is how our organisations function today.


You do understand that many functions of government are not clear cut and simple, right?

Well, no of course not. And the specifics vary depending on what government structure you are specifically talking about.


It should be obvious, but without enforcement there is the strong possibility that people will simply refuse to or fail to implement decisions.

Good for them, they don&#39;t have to contribute or exist within society. They can simply opt out. But presuming we function on the maxim "from each according their abilities to each according their needs" they simply won&#39;t receive, if they don&#39;t contribute.


On what issues will your commune vote?

All issues affecting them.


Which issues will be private?

The ones that don&#39;t effect society.


Who decides?

Depends on if the specific meeting in question is functioning on the principal of "consensus" or a "majority". If its a concessus then everyone decides, either that or the majority.


Your agenda could well reach 450 pages in large metropolitan areas, you understand. Better pack a lunch for your meetings.

Well, if you don&#39;t want to go to the meetings, you don&#39;t have to. Out of the 450 items, only 3 might interest you, and you might not be able to make 2.


Bootmaker says he&#39;s going to produce 250 pairs this year. Community needs 500. What happens?

a) Community finds way of making /acquiring more boots
b) 250 don&#39;t have boots.


No it isn&#39;t.

Then what&#39;s 90% of the population doing wrong?


Explain your situation more fully. What steps have you personally taken to better your situation?

Well, I haven&#39;t made any crippling mistakes in regard to my economic position. Your logic is based on the idea that if people are poor, it&#39;s their own fault, this is clearly wrong. Because not everybody can be successful, can they&#33; I was born into a fairly poor family of 5. Passed my exams at school. Etc. I haven&#39;t yet gone to university, but assuming I can borrow some money from the bank, that will probably be my next move. But even doing well at university, im no more likely to get a better job, then those who don&#39;t. In fact, the average wage for a graduate, one year after leaving university. is £16k a year.


If you are on the verge of living under a bridge, why are you chatting on a message board?

Because I have nothing to do for the next 10 mins.


You pursue what you think are "human interests" because it would benefit you - you&#39;ve admitted it yourself. Because you are on the precipice of poverty and homelessness, you want a system where you would not be in such a position.

That&#39;s all true. But furthermore I want a system where no one is in that position, which is directly opposed to the goal of the large corporation.


Further, your posts illustrate quite clearly that you believe that the system you want would likely make the decisions you would want it to make

Not atall. Why would it, and what makes you say that?


You think the decisions would go your way because you believe the people would resemble YOU. You believe the working class resembles YOU, and that because you share the same class you would all be quite similar to YOU.

Similar to me, in that we have the same human needs, and wil lact in our own interest. We will all be discussing the most practical ways of achieving a material goal, there will almost inevitably be disagreement. Why the hell do you think I&#39;d want everyone to have my point of view? My understanding of computers for example, is piss poor, so I wouldn&#39;t be one to argue much about those matters (for example)

On the contrary, it is the rich who want to get their own way, and are more than willing to kill, maim, rape, slaughter enslave, cut up and feed out anyone who stands in their way.


the clear belief you have that once implemented the system would work just like you would want it to.

There&#39;s only one way it could work. I don&#39;t understand what you mean.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 12:20 PM
Okay. So the socialist community will be one where everyone agrees with each other, under penalty of expulsion, arrest, murder ect.
Why would people always agree with each other? that would be boring, and pretty much impossible anyway. And why would disagreement result in death? Presuming a consensus couldn&#39;t be reached, and you work on a majority to pass a proposal, then the minority will just have to accept that, or drop out of the community, or continue to argue people over.


So the minority opinion will be considered a hostile opinion, thus subject to sanction. It is your fervent hope (because that is all that it is), that no state or government or beauracratic apparatus will be neccessary to enforce the penalty on the non-conformist.

Why would we need to do anything about people with minority views? Society will be based on the principals of Autonomy and Co-operation.


Assuming such a claim is true, would you support such actions taken by the "community" against a minority hostile to the larger goals of the Republic?

I would support the obliteration of any organisation attempting to undermine individuals rights to autonomy, any organisation that attempts to kill, harm, imprison, or bring suffering to anyone - or retards human progression. This includes the church.


What argument do you have against a proscribed penalty for those in the minority?

Why are we after the minority again?


Can a minority also be considered workers who believe that the majority is wrong in what their intended actions are?

A minority is just a camp or camps of individuals who disagree with the majority of people.


What limits are their on the power of the "people?" Limitless?

Limited only by their capacity to do.

[t_wolves_fan]

Voting people into government, doesn&#39;t put you in government. Especially when they don&#39;t act in your interests, but their own. A fact that you yourself admitted. In your last post.

That&#39;s not precisely what I admitted to. What I said is that it is physically impossible for an elected representative to fully represent your interests as an individual and what you perceive as societal interests as a whole. Why? Because that elected official represents the fundamentalist Christian capitalist who lives next to you as well. That being the case, it is not possible for his individual interests and his beliefs about society&#39;s interests to be fully represented along with yours simultaneously.

The result, as I&#39;m sure you understand, is that regardless of the political system, there are going to be people whose interests go unrepresented and their needs unmet. This problem is what makes communism, as described in general on this board, untenable. The communists on this board repeatedly proclaim that their system will "represent the interests of the people&#33;" by claiming, in general, that "the people" all have the same interests, that they will agree - i.e. reach consensus - on everything.

You&#39;re not as bad at committing this fallacy as some of the other posters here to be sure, but you do make it routinely. And that naive belief is a product of your youthful idealism which is touching but inherently unrealistic.

The bottom line is that no system perfectly represents the interest of either "the people" or an individual class because individual people or class members all have radically different views and interests.



Which people? Do you randomly assign people regardless of their intelligence and experience simply in the name of equality; or do you choose experienced professionals?

I can&#39;t really say with any accuracy, as it would be up to each community to run society on it&#39;s own terms. I would postulate that all industries would have a fluid workforce, of individuals that enter and leave workplaces in accordance with their preference, against the general needs of the community. It would make sense for the people with the expertise and passion for a certain job to end up doing it. In a way this is how our organisations function today.

Fluidity of the workforce between industries creates a problem: training will be needed for new workers, which increases costs and reduces productivity. You seem to know this - as you refer to people with expertise doing the jobs - but you whitewash the actual problems inherent in the idea that someone makes shoes one month and then wanders into the supercomputer factory expecting a job. It doesn&#39;t work that way, and if it did you&#39;d produce 10 supercomputers a month because you&#39;re busy training workers instead of producing 25 supercomputers a month with an experienced workforce. Surely you understand the problems you will face if your community needs 25 supercomputers but can receive only 10? Now imagine that problem replicated for every product and service. :o





It should be obvious, but without enforcement there is the strong possibility that people will simply refuse to or fail to implement decisions.

Good for them, they don&#39;t have to contribute or exist within society. They can simply opt out. But presuming we function on the maxim "from each according their abilities to each according their needs" they simply won&#39;t receive, if they don&#39;t contribute.

Problems. Assume that people "opt out" and form their own collective. What if they base it on capitalism? What if their system draws people away from your system? What if by "opting out" they set up a factory that spews tons of mercury onto your community?

What if the people who opt out have children and those children starve. Starving children do not look too good on television and tend to draw sympathy. Will they be cared for strictly by charity? What happens when sympathetic members of society get a welfare system pushed through? Now you need more productivity, but theoretically you have no ability to compel those who opted out to help nor an ability to compel those who do produce to provide assistance.

What happens?



On what issues will your commune vote?

All issues affecting them.


Which issues will be private?

The ones that don&#39;t effect society.

What if society decides your sexual practices affect it? What if society decides your home is too nice and too big and should be appropriated for its uses?


Depends on if the specific meeting in question is functioning on the principal of "consensus" or a "majority". If its a concessus then everyone decides, either that or the majority.

Describe the probability that a community of anywhere from a few hundred to several thousand people will reach consensus on where to put a new factory, how big it will need to be, and who will build it.




Your agenda could well reach 450 pages in large metropolitan areas, you understand. Better pack a lunch for your meetings.

Well, if you don&#39;t want to go to the meetings, you don&#39;t have to. Out of the 450 items, only 3 might interest you, and you might not be able to make 2.

What if you skip agenda item 2 and an amendment arises that affects you while you&#39;re gone?




Bootmaker says he&#39;s going to produce 250 pairs this year. Community needs 500. What happens?

a) Community finds way of making /acquiring more boots
b) 250 don&#39;t have boots.

Explain in detail how A would occur and the results of B, if you would.


Well, I haven&#39;t made any crippling mistakes in regard to my economic position. Your logic is based on the idea that if people are poor, it&#39;s their own fault, this is clearly wrong. Because not everybody can be successful, can they&#33;

That is not specifically my logic. My logic says certainly people will not be born with the skills or the intelligence to better their life, and those people deserve some form of assistance. However, bettering your life is actually incredibly simple. Avoid crime, avoid having children you cannot afford (and yes I am pro-choice) live within your means, and work not just hard but smart, and your socioeconomic status will improve. If you follow those steps you will be more successful than when you started, and the evidence shows that.

Now, you may not have a yacht or a condo on the upper east side or a 64-inch flat panel LCD television like some rich people. But if you demand that you have such material possessions in order to consider your life a success or to consider life fair, then that is absurd.



I was born into a fairly poor family of 5. Passed my exams at school. Etc. I haven&#39;t yet gone to university, but assuming I can borrow some money from the bank, that will probably be my next move.

That is similar to my family situation, though my parents stopped at one child due to their financial situation - again, their choice. Learn from your family situation about the cost of having children versus your income and potential income.

I also borrowed money to attend school. I chose a relatively low-paying profession, which was entirely my choice and I accept that. I have lived within my means and I guess I am now in the "petit bourgeoisie". And I can tell you with a straight face that it really was not terribly difficult.


But even doing well at university, im no more likely to get a better job, then those who don&#39;t.

If this is true, and I doubt it is, why go? You will be making the choice to go into debt for no appreciable gain, so why would you make that choice?


In fact, the average wage for a graduate, one year after leaving university. is £16k a year.

I started at about that. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Why are you owed a salary equivalent to someone who has been in the field for 20 years and has a proven track record of success?

Would you advise your communist commune to invest its scarce capital equally in both an unproven venture that will yield completely unknown results and a venture with a proven track record?


That&#39;s all true. But furthermore I want a system where no one is in that position, which is directly opposed to the goal of the large corporation.

That&#39;s fair, and noble. I can say that your belief system is more moral on its face than the "survival of the fittest" laissez-faire crowd.

But I would argue it&#39;s idealistic and the counter-argument is that your system provides a major disincentive for people to maximize their productivity and ingenuity because their efforts will be guided by the whims of "the people". That criticism is fair.


Similar to me, in that we have the same human needs, and wil lact in our own interest. We will all be discussing the most practical ways of achieving a material goal, there will almost inevitably be disagreement. Why the hell do you think I&#39;d want everyone to have my point of view? My understanding of computers for example, is piss poor, so I wouldn&#39;t be one to argue much about those matters (for example)

There it is: the same flaw inherent in the laissez-faire argument. The belief that because you would behave a certain way, you assume everyone else will too. The laissez-faire capitalist says he will behave rationally and give to charity, and so if everyone else behaves that way, it will work.

It&#39;s not going to happen. Look at political arguments today, do people only argue about things with which they have in-depth experience and knowledge? Of course not. They argue about policy decisions about which they know nothing because they are expected to in our political system. People don&#39;t know jack shit about climate change or trade policy or how the military works or how a welfare program might best operate yet because it&#39;s public policy, they are encourage to put their two cents in, so they do. Your system greatly expands the topics that people are expected to participate in discussion about.

You really sure that because you&#39;re smart enough to not get too involved in topics you don&#39;t know much about that every other moron out there is going to do the same? That&#39;s faith, my friend.


On the contrary, it is the rich who want to get their own way, and are more than willing to kill, maim, rape, slaughter enslave, cut up and feed out anyone who stands in their way.

Really. You sure it&#39;s every rich person, or is it possible you&#39;re engaging in a gross generalization?

Are you really sure that by eliminating wealth you&#39;re going to eliminate these human traits? Can you be sure you&#39;ll eliminate the black market?

[Marx Lenin Stalin]

When the communism comes we gonna give fuking capitalist pigs the Stalin treatment. ;)

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Marx Lenin [email protected] 6 2006, 06:22 PM
When the communism comes we gonna give fuking capitalist pigs the Stalin treatment. ;)
You sound like a 12 year old kid who is trying to be rebellious. Come back when you grow up.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Marx Lenin [email protected] 6 2006, 05:22 PM
When the communism comes we gonna give fuking capitalist pigs the Stalin treatment. ;)
Yeah *****in&#39; man, way to like totally stick it to the establishment man.

Rock on.

:D

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

wow i just read through this whole thread - very interesting :D

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

See, this is the thing. I suggested in post number 1 of this thread that you can&#39;t just kill me and take my goods because this would:


1) imply there was some government in charge.


2) be fundumentally immoral, seeing as lots of people like me are going to get butchered.


Not only have you collectively failed to refute me, but you have failed to reason how you could stop me without resorting to some form of government control. Ergo communism is unsustainable.


I&#39;d say your definition of communism has been........

http://www.lglan.net/vbdump/tribal/2001_justin-owned.jpg

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 05:20 PM
What I said is that it is physically impossible for an elected representative to fully represent your interests as an individual and what you perceive as societal interests as a whole. Why? Because that elected official represents the fundamentalist Christian capitalist who lives next to you as well. That being the case, it is not possible for his individual interests and his beliefs about society&#39;s interests to be fully represented along with yours simultaneously.

I can&#39;t be bothered to answer all this now... but here goes

Anyway, to the first point. I totally agree, representation doesn&#39;t work. People are too diverse and individual to be accurately represented by one man, who&#39;s class interests, personal interests, and background are different to the majorities.


The result, as I&#39;m sure you understand, is that regardless of the political system, there are going to be people whose interests go unrepresented and their needs unmet.

Of course. And no doubt. That will happen in every political system, for perhaps the most mundane of reasons. But within the system of direct democracy everyone has an institutional right to represent themselves. And if their ideas are practical, based on scientific reason, and strong, they&#39;ll do well to win people over in the marketplace of ideas.

As for the point on consensus, yes there are problems with it. Mainly that it can be very hard to get everyone to reach one. The more people involved, the harder a consensus becomes. But im not sure it&#39;s as unrealistic as you make it out to be. Firstly because the community will have the same practical goals and interests, in terms of producing for themselves. I mean they&#39;re not going to be discussing subjective matters like morality or preference, but practical matters like industry. And if you take the federative route, each workplace will have it&#39;s own counsel, that will reach it&#39;s own conclusions and perhaps send a delegate to represent that workplace, though Im sure all the workers can go if they can be bothered.


You&#39;re not as bad at committing this fallacy as some of the other posters here to be sure, but you do make it routinely. And that naive belief is a product of your youthful idealism which is touching but inherently unrealistic.

Well, what exactly is it that you see as unrealistic? I mean, I know exactly where you are coming from, and im glad we can discuss this properly. But I don&#39;t see what&#39;s so unrealistic about it. It&#39;s no more "farfetched" that the system you propose sounded, in feudal Europe.


The bottom line is that no system perfectly represents the interest of either "the people" or an individual class because individual people or class members all have radically different views and interests.

Well, agreed. But variety is the spice of life, no?


Fluidity of the workforce between industries creates a problem: training will be needed for new workers,

Priority will be for getting things done. So it may transpire, that fluidity of the workforce simply shouldn&#39;t happen. But even you recognise the right to leave a job and enter a new one. If productivity was the only maxim, we may as well have a caste like the ants, and train people for a certain job from birth.


the actual problems inherent in the idea that someone makes shoes one month and then wanders into the supercomputer factory expecting a job. It doesn&#39;t work that way, and if it did you&#39;d produce 10 supercomputers a month because you&#39;re busy training workers instead of producing 25 supercomputers a month with an experienced workforce. Surely you understand the problems you will face if your community needs 25 supercomputers but can receive only 10? Now imagine that problem replicated for every product and service. :o

No doubt about it. If we had loads of people entering jobs in which they had no understanding or interest, and required education, productivity would slip. But as I said, as the economy would be democratically run, if productivity were slipping, and equally, the standard of living, the community have the power to either keep on going as it is, or decide themselves to start working in the appropriate industries.


Assume that people "opt out" and form their own collective. What if they base it on capitalism? What if their system draws people away from your system? What if by "opting out" they set up a factory that spews tons of mercury onto your community?

Well, if they form a collective that operates on the supply/demand principal, then fine so long as every member is free to leave their position in that society and join any others. Hell, people can go and set up racial castes if they want, so long as people can leave, but quite simply why would anyone join? As for the factory, if they are poising nearby residents, then how is it not manslaughter? It would have to be sorted out and I can think of plenty of ways. I mean to start with, that sort of factory doesn&#39;t sound very efficient or cost saving, so why not assist that community in making the factory green?


What if the people who opt out have children and those children starve.

Well I can relate this to primitivism, and equally; religion. As you may notice primitivists are restricted on this site, for various reasons but also the one you just stated. As I said, these societies will function on the principal of autonomy, but not at the expense of another s autonomy. Bringing a child into a situation where it may starve, suffer, whatever is absolutely disgusting it&#39;s child abuse. And yes, that child should be helped. We wont need charities, because it&#39;s "from each according their abilities to each according their needs" the baby obviously doesn&#39;t have any abilities, but has needs, so should be looked after by society.


What if society decides your sexual practices affect it? What if society decides your home is too nice and too big and should be appropriated for its uses?

Well, I can&#39;t think how to word it simply but it to put it simply it would be "unconstitutional" we all have the right to autonomy. That&#39;s the base principal of Anarchism, we are all autonomous individuals in ourselves. Who co-operate with eachother out of necessity, for the interests of humanity. If they were to make wild, baseless assertions like "you sexual preferences are a community issue" they&#39;d have to prove it. And im guessing they can&#39;t. Furthermore if a community became homophobic, the homosexuals would be free to leave, and "activists" would have a duty to smash the superstitious bullshit. It wouldn&#39;t be good for anyone.


Describe the probability that a community of anywhere from a few hundred to several thousand people will reach consensus on where to put a new factory, how big it will need to be, and who will build it.

Not very likely atall. But the system may break down into interest groups or councils that run the appropriate industries that simply need representation in larger forums.



What if you skip agenda item 2 and an amendment arises that affects you while you&#39;re gone?

Well, you&#39;ll have to go back and debate your point at the next meeting, or raise the technical point that you intended to be there, and were not given reasonable notice or whatever. Incidentally, these discussions might not even have to be held in time and space. They could be done on forums like this one, over a few days. Perhaps they could be done in real life and on the net, who can say? but the internet has made direct democracy much more practical.


Explain in detail how A would occur and the results of B, if you would.

Well, a community could aquire more boots in plenty of ways. Firstly, these communities are not isolated, the community will have representation in an inter-comunal forum, which may form a trans. continental forum etc. So in certain areas, communities will face drought, hurricanes, disease. So taking it as a given that our interests are the interests of humanity, we will simply give "according to need" Basically, get the boots from elsewhere. Alternatively, they could look for ways to produce more boots, perhaps getting other people who can work in that industry to "help out"

Failing all of this, the result would be no boots for 250 people, one would presume they&#39;d have to wear their old shoes :lol:


If you follow those steps you will be more successful than when you started, and the evidence shows that.

Agreeable, but I don&#39;t think it implies much. That&#39;s not a model for moving up a class, or even living a very fulfilling life. I don&#39;t like to use artistic phrases in these sorts of debates but that&#39;s not really a life, just a way of fulfilling a function within capitalist society. Especially not when there&#39;s no need to have to jump though hoops, work your ass off, and sacrifice the joy of a child, to not starve.


I have lived within my means and I guess I am now in the "petit bourgeoisie". And I can tell you with a straight face that it really was not terribly difficult.

And is there not a twinge of anger in the face of the fact that, you&#39;ve earnt more than you were paid?


I started at about that. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Why are you owed a salary equivalent to someone who has been in the field for 20 years and has a proven track record of success?

You are owed whatever if is you earn. Which unfortunately is not what you get paid. Nor is it appropriate considering what society could provide.


But I would argue it&#39;s idealistic and the counter-argument is that your system provides a major disincentive for people to maximize their productivity and ingenuity because their efforts will be guided by the whims of "the people". That criticism is fair.

In what way is there a disincentive?. Regardless of political system, people all have the same needs. Food, water, shelter, human company, etc. And will now have the ability to provide for themselves, and not have things handed to them. I know I tend to work better on my own terms than on someone else&#39;s.



It&#39;s not going to happen. Look at political arguments today, do people only argue about things with which they have in-depth experience and knowledge? Of course not. They argue about policy decisions about which they know nothing because they are expected to in our political system. People don&#39;t know jack shit about climate change or trade policy or how the military works or how a welfare program might best operate yet because it&#39;s public policy, they are encourage to put their two cents in, so they do. Your system greatly expands the topics that people are expected to participate in discussion about.

Well, if they don&#39;t know anything about these respective arguments, they will fall flat on their face when the opposition who does know what they&#39;re on about puts forward her facts and figures. But you&#39;re right to an extent. The democratic system won&#39;t run smoothly and ideally, and each community will probably interpret the functioning of this system differently. As I said, each forum would ideally break down into categories "the steel mill collective" "bookmakers" "local farmers" and practical debates would be had within these groups. Hopefully removing the above issue. Though stupid debates are never going to go away, unfortunately :P


Really. You sure it&#39;s every rich person, or is it possible you&#39;re engaging in a gross generalization?
?

Yes, it&#39;s a class generalisation. One based on observation, one you can test, and verify.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 05:05 AM
Not only have you collectively failed to refute me, but you have failed to reason how you could stop me without resorting to some form of government control. Ergo communism is unsustainable.

Well, it&#39;d be nice if you&#39;d read through some of the posts you might just come to the horrific realisation that you have failed to respond to most of the counter-points to your original argument. At least some of the other people here actually debate, you&#39;re just an idiot.

[getoutofhere]

Originally posted by RevolutionaryMarxist+--> (RevolutionaryMarxist)wow i just read through this whole thread - very interesting[/b]

ya, as interesting as spongebob square pants. :D


Originally posted by Love [email protected]
At least some of the other people here actually debate, you&#39;re just an idiot.

wekekek.... he&#39;s more than idiot, how you realized it just now?


thisguyismorethanajerk
See, this is the thing. I suggested in post number 1 of this thread that you can&#39;t just kill me and take my goods because this would:


1) imply there was some government in charge.


2) be fundumentally immoral, seeing as lots of people like me are going to get butchered.


Not only have you collectively failed to refute me, but you have failed to reason how you could stop me without resorting to some form of government control. Ergo communism is unsustainable.


I&#39;d say your definition of communism has been........ owned

shut up

[t_wolves_fan]

But within the system of direct democracy everyone has an institutional right to represent themselves. And if their ideas are practical, based on scientific reason, and strong, they&#39;ll do well to win people over in the marketplace of ideas.

Like a laissez-faire capitalist, you put far too much faith in people&#39;s rationality.

Public policy is not made solely on scientific credibility nor strong logical arguments. For most people, politics in an emotional affair. I work in the business - I know of what I speak. The community&#39;s interest takes a back seat when a policy represents a threat - real or perceived - to someone&#39;s freedom, economic security, family structure, moral values, fears, and plenty of other criteria that aren&#39;t measured by statistical experiences.


As for the point on consensus, yes there are problems with it. Mainly that it can be very hard to get everyone to reach one. The more people involved, the harder a consensus becomes. But im not sure it&#39;s as unrealistic as you make it out to be. Firstly because the community will have the same practical goals and interests, in terms of producing for themselves. I mean they&#39;re not going to be discussing subjective matters like morality or preference, but practical matters like industry. And if you take the federative route, each workplace will have it&#39;s own counsel, that will reach it&#39;s own conclusions and perhaps send a delegate to represent that workplace, though Im sure all the workers can go if they can be bothered.

You cannot eliminate subjective morality from public policy decisions. I work in the field trying to figure out how to dole out scarce public resources. Scientific rationality makes good arguments but rarely overcomes subjective personal whims. I agree it would be great if we could separate the two, but it&#39;s not going to happen. The sooner you accept that the more realistic your political goals will become.


Priority will be for getting things done. So it may transpire, that fluidity of the workforce simply shouldn&#39;t happen.

So now you prohibit people from trying to change industries?


But even you recognise the right to leave a job and enter a new one. If productivity was the only maxim, we may as well have a caste like the ants, and train people for a certain job from birth.

The current system provides incentives that your system lacks for people to enter into a field they may not like: money is the big one, prestige is another. Your system rests on the notion that people are going to enter into other fields for purely altruistic reasons, being the good of the community. I find that naive and highly unlikely.


No doubt about it. If we had loads of people entering jobs in which they had no understanding or interest, and required education, productivity would slip. But as I said, as the economy would be democratically run, if productivity were slipping, and equally, the standard of living, the community have the power to either keep on going as it is, or decide themselves to start working in the appropriate industries.

You run into the problem that people may simply not like the field that requires more workers. Does a democratically run economy mean tha workers are compelled to work an industry that is short of workers?


As for the factory, if they are poising nearby residents, then how is it not manslaughter? It would have to be sorted out and I can think of plenty of ways.

How without a government to enforce it? Theoretically the offending collective is responsible only to itself. If the offending collective does not rely on the victim collective for anything, how does the victim collective enforce justice?


I mean to start with, that sort of factory doesn&#39;t sound very efficient or cost saving, so why not assist that community in making the factory green?

It may not be as efficient to operate in a green manner but it&#39;s much cheaper to get started. It&#39;s also far more inexpensive to pollute than to prevent pollution.


Well I can relate this to primitivism, and equally; religion. As you may notice primitivists are restricted on this site, for various reasons but also the one you just stated. As I said, these societies will function on the principal of autonomy, but not at the expense of another s autonomy. Bringing a child into a situation where it may starve, suffer, whatever is absolutely disgusting it&#39;s child abuse. And yes, that child should be helped. We wont need charities, because it&#39;s "from each according their abilities to each according their needs" the baby obviously doesn&#39;t have any abilities, but has needs, so should be looked after by society.

So the child will be taken away from its family?

Are you really expecting people to buy the idea that family is primitive and should be abandoned?


Well, I can&#39;t think how to word it simply but it to put it simply it would be "unconstitutional"

A constitution requires an enforcement mechanism. Enforcement is by definition a government function.


we all have the right to autonomy. That&#39;s the base principal of Anarchism, we are all autonomous individuals in ourselves. Who co-operate with eachother out of necessity, for the interests of humanity. If they were to make wild, baseless assertions like "you sexual preferences are a community issue" they&#39;d have to prove it. And im guessing they can&#39;t.

No, proof is not required. What would be required would be political support. Again you fantasize that emotion and subjectivity can be completely divorced from public policy making, which is absolutely false.


Furthermore if a community became homophobic, the homosexuals would be free to leave, and "activists" would have a duty to smash the superstitious bullshit.

Duty to who or what? Your premise is contradictory - if they have complete individual autonomy, how do they simultaneously have a duty to the common good?

How is that duty to the common good enforced without government compulsion?

Do you have any other answer than "because they would because that&#39;s what I would do"?



Describe the probability that a community of anywhere from a few hundred to several thousand people will reach consensus on where to put a new factory, how big it will need to be, and who will build it.

Not very likely atall. But the system may break down into interest groups or councils that run the appropriate industries that simply need representation in larger forums.

Then what. What happens when the boot factory decides they need 25,000 tons of leather but the leather cooperative decides they will produce 15,000 tons of leather but the cow cooperative decides they will produce only 500 cows.

Explain the mechanism for what happens.




Well, you&#39;ll have to go back and debate your point at the next meeting, or raise the technical point that you intended to be there, and were not given reasonable notice or whatever. Incidentally, these discussions might not even have to be held in time and space. They could be done on forums like this one, over a few days. Perhaps they could be done in real life and on the net, who can say? but the internet has made direct democracy much more practical.

Who enforces the parliamentary rules? What happens to those who refuse to consent?


Failing all of this, the result would be no boots for 250 people, one would presume they&#39;d have to wear their old shoes :lol:

What if I don&#39;t want to wear old shoes (or can&#39;t because the old ones have fallen apart) and I offer up something a bootmaker really wants for a pair, on the sly?


Agreeable, but I don&#39;t think it implies much. That&#39;s not a model for moving up a class,

Yes, actually it is. Plenty of empirical evidence exists that if you work and study hard, avoid drugs, crime and making babies you will almost certainly move up socioeconomically.


And is there not a twinge of anger in the face of the fact that, you&#39;ve earnt more than you were paid?

No, why would there be? If and when I get to the point that I want or need more money, I&#39;ll simply seek another job in my field.


You are owed whatever if is you earn. Which unfortunately is not what you get paid. Nor is it appropriate considering what society could provide.

Yes, actually it is what I&#39;ve earned. Society has decided through millions upon millions of transactions annually over a period of years that my chosen profession is worth the salary I make.


In what way is there a disincentive?. Regardless of political system, people all have the same needs. Food, water, shelter, human company, etc. And will now have the ability to provide for themselves, and not have things handed to them. I know I tend to work better on my own terms than on someone else&#39;s.

They also have other needs, matierali, spiritual, familial that cannot be met under your system. You may disagree that they are "needs", but that represents you opinion and nothing more.


Well, if they don&#39;t know anything about these respective arguments, they will fall flat on their face when the opposition who does know what they&#39;re on about puts forward her facts and figures.

See above. No, the opposition armed with statistics and empirical evidence does not always get their way.


Yes, it&#39;s a class generalisation. One based on observation, one you can test, and verify.

So you&#39;ve seen and observed actual capitalists behaving in bloodthirsty, unethical ways. Such as?

[Cryotank Screams]

First thing I&#39;m going to do is to help myself to all of this free produce, hoard it, and everyone can go starve unless they give me infinite use of their womenfolk and labor

One of the main points of Communism is distribution, why would we allow you to "hoard," everything?


and go work in mines or something to dig me lots of gold and diamonds. I will then melt down the gold, issue currency, allocate myself the biggest batch, and I shall rule as king of the world

Yea, one person is going to tell a nation of revolutionaries to go work in the mines, and claim you as king; are you mental? Honestly?


Since there will be no government in a communist system, I doubt anyone will be able to stop me.

Yea, cause the vanguard party wouldn&#39;t exist or anything, :rolleyes: . Only in the very final stages of Communism will there be no government.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] 9 2006, 09:19 PM
Yea, cause the vanguard party wouldn&#39;t exist or anything, :rolleyes: . Only in the very final stages of Communism will there be no government.
The vanguard would never relinquish its power.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:04 PM
Like a laissez-faire capitalist, you put far too much faith in people&#39;s rationality.

Wel las you have dedicated a thread to this issue, I&#39;ll reply to it there if I have time.


So now you prohibit people from trying to change industries?

No, but it&#39;s a matter for discussion in such a society.


You run into the problem that people may simply not like the field that requires more workers. Does a democratically run economy mean tha workers are compelled to work an industry that is short of workers?

They have a choice, between meeting their needs. Or going without. Unfortunatly we need to grow food, build housing etc, it might not be very fun, but unfortunatly it has to be done. Also, you raise the point of it being ultaristic, it&#39;s not. They contribute their part to society, in return for the produce of society; electricity, heating, gas, food, everything. It&#39;s in their interest.


How without a government to enforce it? Theoretically the offending collective is responsible only to itself. If the offending collective does not rely on the victim collective for anything, how does the victim collective enforce justice?

As I stated before, these colelctives aren&#39;t iscolated, or in their own universes, they form federations- who&#39;s interests overlap. If one colelctive is essentially killing the other, it needs to be dealt with. And will be, by some democratically run body or other.


It may not be as efficient to operate in a green manner but it&#39;s much cheaper to get started. It&#39;s also far more inexpensive to pollute than to prevent pollution.

But money will be abolished. Costs will be irrelivant.


So the child will be taken away from its family?

If it is being abused, raped, mutilated, whatever, then In my opinion you have no choice but to rescue the child.


Are you really expecting people to buy the idea that family is primitive and should be abandoned?

Are you really placing the idea of family above humans well-being? I think most people would be willing to takea child out of a family if it&#39;s parents are raping it, or making it eat raw rabbit or something.


A constitution requires an enforcement mechanism. Enforcement is by definition a government function.

Fine, but a government with everybody in it.


Duty to who or what? Your premise is contradictory - if they have complete individual autonomy, how do they simultaneously have a duty to the common good?

It&#39;s nothing to do with the common good and it certainly isn&#39;t contradictory, it&#39;s a logical extension of autonomism. Homophobia, is in itself opposed to the concept of autonomy. It sees a particular sexual preference as bad, and in most cases attempts to prevent people from expressing it. So if ones social principal is autonomy, you have a duty to end any form of opression. Not only on this basis, but on the grounds that all homophobic arguments are founded on irrationality, anti-scientific and pseudo-racist thinking. For the sake of rationality it has to be destroyed.


How is that duty to the common good enforced without government compulsion?

You seem to think "no government" means no form of public body that can perform any function.


Then what. What happens when the boot factory decides they need 25,000 tons of leather but the leather cooperative decides they will produce 15,000 tons of leather but the cow cooperative decides they will produce only 500 cows.

a) the cow farmers and leather producers meet the requirement
b) they don&#39;t expect any boots


Who enforces the parliamentary rules? What happens to those who refuse to consent?

Ellected facillitators.
Disruptive members or "trolls" will be booted from discussions., if they have legitimate objections to the running of the meeting (we call these technical points) they can raise them, of course.


What if I don&#39;t want to wear old shoes (or can&#39;t because the old ones have fallen apart) and I offer up something a bootmaker really wants for a pair, on the sly?

I thought we agreed he couldn&#39;t make enough shoes? but now he can make an extra pair for you?


Yes, actually it is. Plenty of empirical evidence exists that if you work and study hard, avoid drugs, crime and making babies you will almost certainly move up socioeconomically.

Take a step back. How many people is this realistically atainable for. Can everyone mvoe up a class, in the whole world?


Yes, actually it is what I&#39;ve earned

Without going into the specifics of your chosen profession. Exploitation happens, the wealth you have produced for an industry is not paid back to you, it is instantly taxed and given to the boss, because s/he has the leaverage and power to do so without reprisal (apart from working class organisation). Fuck the market, look at the material reality. The market is essentially a superstition.


They also have other needs, matierali, spiritual, familial that cannot be met under your system. You may disagree that they are "needs", but that represents you opinion and nothing more.

How are family needs not met? ...And im sure there will be enough Vodka, Gin and Whisky for everyones spititual needs, after the revolution ;)


So you&#39;ve seen and observed actual capitalists behaving in bloodthirsty, unethical ways. Such as?

In the same capacity I can confirm New Zealand exists, though I have never been there and seen it myself. Of course the capitalists don&#39;t kill people themselves, theydon&#39;t cut down the rainforests, and cut peoples water off themselves, but they are ultimately responsable.

[t_wolves_fan]

So now you prohibit people from trying to change industries?

No, but it&#39;s a matter for discussion in such a society.

Discussion leading to what?

Society: "OK, it&#39;s agreed, we need 500 more ironworkers. Bob, you&#39;re a productive worker, can you work in the smelting plant?"

Bob: "No, I don&#39;t like that work."

Society: "But Bob, you&#39;re now writing books which we really don&#39;t need. We really need you in the smelting plant."

Bob: "No, the heat chafes my skin and the smell makes me gag."


What happens?



You run into the problem that people may simply not like the field that requires more workers. Does a democratically run economy mean tha workers are compelled to work an industry that is short of workers?

They have a choice, between meeting their needs. Or going without. Unfortunatly we need to grow food, build housing etc, it might not be very fun, but unfortunatly it has to be done. Also, you raise the point of it being ultaristic, it&#39;s not. They contribute their part to society, in return for the produce of society; electricity, heating, gas, food, everything. It&#39;s in their interest.

This isn&#39;t materially different from the present arrangement where people work in fields they may not love so they can feed their family.

This also violates the principle of individual autonomy, since you&#39;re now claiming people will have to work in fields they may not like for the good of society. If an individual had real autonomy, they&#39;d work in their chosen field because they want to.



How without a government to enforce it? Theoretically the offending collective is responsible only to itself. If the offending collective does not rely on the victim collective for anything, how does the victim collective enforce justice?

As I stated before, these colelctives aren&#39;t iscolated, or in their own universes, they form federations- who&#39;s interests overlap. If one colelctive is essentially killing the other, it needs to be dealt with. And will be, by some democratically run body or other.

Which is government. Which also violates the idea that a given collective may operate democratically because they may democratically choose to operate in a manner that has an effect on the other cooperative.

In essence, nothing would really change. Just as nations go to war with one another now, collectives would go to war with one another in your system.




It may not be as efficient to operate in a green manner but it&#39;s much cheaper to get started. It&#39;s also far more inexpensive to pollute than to prevent pollution.

But money will be abolished. Costs will be irrelivant.

Not really, since it&#39;s also easier - meaning reduced labor (i.e. cost) - to build high-polluting production methods. If the green-technology-producing collective isn&#39;t up for producing more green technology, the truck-producing collective will either use current technology or piece together what it can on its own.



So the child will be taken away from its family?

If it is being abused, raped, mutilated, whatever, then In my opinion you have no choice but to rescue the child.

I would agree with you depending on how you define "abuse". What if parents are teaching their kids to be Christian?



Are you really expecting people to buy the idea that family is primitive and should be abandoned?

Are you really placing the idea of family above humans well-being? I think most people would be willing to takea child out of a family if it&#39;s parents are raping it, or making it eat raw rabbit or something.

We already do that.

However if the collective votes to take away my child because another worker is needed in the factory, I&#39;d refuse to give him or her up. I think you&#39;d find that attitude to be quite common. Again the communist fantasy where subjectivity can be eliminated. You need to read some Huxley.



A constitution requires an enforcement mechanism. Enforcement is by definition a government function.

Fine, but a government with everybody in it.

Great, the mob can choose to tear down my home for the good of the collective. That&#39;s awesome.



Duty to who or what? Your premise is contradictory - if they have complete individual autonomy, how do they simultaneously have a duty to the common good?

It&#39;s nothing to do with the common good and it certainly isn&#39;t contradictory, it&#39;s a logical extension of autonomism.

You just said that people would have a duty to the common good. Your fantasy land is falling apart.



Homophobia, is in itself opposed to the concept of autonomy. It sees a particular sexual preference as bad, and in most cases attempts to prevent people from expressing it. So if ones social principal is autonomy, you have a duty to end any form of opression. Not only on this basis, but on the grounds that all homophobic arguments are founded on irrationality, anti-scientific and pseudo-racist thinking. For the sake of rationality it has to be destroyed.

To someone who believes that heterosexuality is inherenty rational due to the requirement that both sexes be involved in reproduction, homophobia is inherently rational. I don&#39;t agree with that argument either - I am as un-homophobic as you can get. Yet from that subjective point of view, that argument is rational.

Your problem is that you&#39;re arrogant enough to assume that what you find to be rational is the only true rationality and that your opinion is not subjective at all, just like every other person on earth who thinks their subjective opinion is the most rational; and so you&#39;re constructing a theoretical fantasy land where everyone shares your opinion of rationality which of course would "work" just like any other fantasy land would. Compounding that problem is that you don&#39;t understand much about how statistics and empirical data almost never provide an optimal solution to a public policy problem due to all the factors that can go into a policy choice.

The sooner you understand that values and subjectivity must, and always will, play a role in policy choices, the sooner you&#39;ll stop making laughably naive statements.




How is that duty to the common good enforced without government compulsion?

You seem to think "no government" means no form of public body that can perform any function.

Yes, because it&#39;s true. If you have a "public body" enforcing the will of the public, that is government. Kind of like how if you have a big piece of wood that is living, has roots and has leaves, it&#39;s a tree.

I don&#39;t understand this cognitive dissonance that people like you have where you say to yourself, "My fantasy land in the clouds has a public body that enforces the will of the public in a way not much different than what we have now, except that of course everyone will magically reach consensus after having their say, but so long as I don&#39;t call it a government then somehow that&#39;s better than if I just admit that yes, it really is a government."



Then what. What happens when the boot factory decides they need 25,000 tons of leather but the leather cooperative decides they will produce 15,000 tons of leather but the cow cooperative decides they will produce only 500 cows.

a) the cow farmers and leather producers meet the requirement
b) they don&#39;t expect any boots

The leather producers cannot meet the requirement when the cow commnue doesn&#39;t produce enough cows.

People will be quite upset when they need new boots for their new children or to replace worn out boots but they cannot get any. Helllooo black market.




Who enforces the parliamentary rules? What happens to those who refuse to consent?

Ellected facillitators.
Disruptive members or "trolls" will be booted from discussions., if they have legitimate objections to the running of the meeting (we call these technical points) they can raise them, of course.

Wait wait wait. I thought every person would have their say. Now you&#39;re telling me that if that person is "disruptive", they are kicked out of the discussion.

Who decides they&#39;re being disruptive? What if they&#39;re very angry that the collective is considering tearing down their home to build a new factory or mine an important mineral?

How do the elected facilitators enforce their decision?



What if I don&#39;t want to wear old shoes (or can&#39;t because the old ones have fallen apart) and I offer up something a bootmaker really wants for a pair, on the sly?

I thought we agreed he couldn&#39;t make enough shoes? but now he can make an extra pair for you?

He can&#39;t make enough shoes, but instead of sending 900 pairs to the boot store, he takes a couple pairs when the opportunity presents itself and trades them to me for something he really wants. The boot store receives only 800 pairs but nobody can figure out where the other pairs went. What happens?



Yes, actually it is. Plenty of empirical evidence exists that if you work and study hard, avoid drugs, crime and making babies you will almost certainly move up socioeconomically.

Take a step back. How many people is this realistically atainable for. Can everyone mvoe up a class, in the whole world?

Funny how your entire theory rests on the importance and acceptance of empirical data but now you&#39;re finding every excuse to not have to accept it. Your subjective opinion tells you that if not everyone on earth can raise their socioeconomic status to a level equal to others in a short timeframe, then an injustice has occurred. Another subjective opinion would say what I am about to say:

It is certainly more immediately and easily attainable for those of us in the industrialized west. However, a bit of context is required. For the poor farmer in the third world, if he goes from subsistence farming to working in the factory for better wages that get him a home with walls on all four sides and access to cleaner drinking water, then his life and that of his family has immediately improved a great degree. I&#39;m sure your complaint will be that he has not immediately risen to the level of a capitalist in the industrialized west, but that complaint is preposterous because reality dictates that societies will improve their material condition not immediately but over time. That worker&#39;s child could in turn borrow money from his parents or team together with friends or find investors and start his own small business, perhaps selling goods his father&#39;s company builds or providing a service. Over time, that family&#39;s subsequent generations could very well improve their life substantially from the subsistence farming level at which they started.

Your subjective rejection of empirical evidence is precisely why your system will not work.



Yes, actually it is what I&#39;ve earned

Without going into the specifics of your chosen profession. Exploitation happens, the wealth you have produced for an industry is not paid back to you, it is instantly taxed and given to the boss, because s/he has the leaverage and power to do so without reprisal (apart from working class organisation). Fuck the market, look at the material reality. The market is essentially a superstition.

That is so absurd it&#39;s hard to even respond. I am not being "exploited" in a bad sense because I have chosen this profession and this employer at this salary. Your incomprehensible opinion about the market being superstition is just plain ridiculous.



They also have other needs, matierali, spiritual, familial that cannot be met under your system. You may disagree that they are "needs", but that represents you opinion and nothing more.

How are family needs not met?

That would be up to the individual family to decide. Or do you think it&#39;s up to you to decide other people&#39;s needs? If so, how does your determination of their needs reflect on their autonomy?



So you&#39;ve seen and observed actual capitalists behaving in bloodthirsty, unethical ways. Such as?

In the same capacity I can confirm New Zealand exists, though I have never been there and seen it myself. Of course the capitalists don&#39;t kill people themselves, theydon&#39;t cut down the rainforests, and cut peoples water off themselves, but they are ultimately responsable

So the answer is no, you have no actual experience witnessing all capitalists engaging in such behavior and that your own broad generalization is all the evidence you need.

Are you figuring this out yet ace?