Communes and subcultures

[Dimentio]

Constitutionally, the post-capitalist society, whether council-communist, syndicalist or technocrat, would be composed of smaller units, communes, councils and autonomies. Do you think it would be more diverse and creative if people adhering to specific subcultures were granted the right to form communes based on their own interests?

[Delirium]

I assumed it would be everyones right to associate with whomever they pleased.

[Dimentio]

One problem is of course ethnically motivated worker councils, for example worker councils for just white people, or for Africans and Eastern Asians for that matter.

[Delirium]

Those are bound to happen, but at that point of creation of workers councils i would hope that class consciousness would be developed somewhat and people would realize race and ethnicity are only divisions exploited to subdue the revolutionary class(es).

What would be the other option? You cannot order people to migrate.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Delirium [email protected] 10, 2007 10:16 pm
Those are bound to happen, but at that point of creation of workers councils i would hope that class consciousness would be developed somewhat and people would realize race and ethnicity are only divisions exploited to subdue the revolutionary class(es).

What would be the other option? You cannot order people to migrate.
No. But ethnic loyalties and clan systems would probably survive within a post-capitalist system as well.

[Fawkes]

Those ethnic loyalties would most likely be much more prevalent immediately following the revolution and slowly die away as time goes on and people become more used to the idea of true equality.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 11:33 pm
Those ethnic loyalties would most likely be much more prevalent immediately following the revolution and slowly die away as time goes on and people become more used to the idea of true equality.
Goth vampire: "What do you mean by equality? I just want to engage with my friends and look cool."

[Fawkes]

What the hell???

[Dimentio]

Some people does not care about equality. Some are just anti-social and wants to be for themselves. Other wants to live an extravagant life of gotho-vampiric decadence.

I think it may be a good idea with communes who is for people which does'nt like people.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 12:33 am
Those ethnic loyalties would most likely be much more prevalent immediately following the revolution and slowly die away as time goes on and people become more used to the idea of true equality.
Then how do you envisage that the revolution will be achieved in the first place? Surely the working class will have to transcend such divisions before it is fit to take on capitalism and initiate a new social order.

[Dimentio]

50-75% needs to be unified, but we should allow for an umbrella organisation.

[Hit The North]

Yes, but we don't tolerate 'whites only' organizations under capitalism, so I'll be damned if we'll except 'em under socialism.

[Dimentio]

They are tolerated in some capitalist countries.

But if people chose to be racist by their own will but don't harm any other and keep for themselves, would they yet be smashed because of their opinions? Or another example, tribal peoples like the Zulus and Massai, or religious groups like the Amish, would they be tolerated?

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+January 10, 2007 07:21 pm--> (Citizen Zero @ January 10, 2007 07:21 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 12:33 am
Those ethnic loyalties would most likely be much more prevalent immediately following the revolution and slowly die away as time goes on and people become more used to the idea of true equality.
Then how do you envisage that the revolution will be achieved in the first place? Surely the working class will have to transcend such divisions before it is fit to take on capitalism and initiate a new social order. [/b]
Like Serpent said, a large portion of the working class has to be united, but not all of it.

[Dimentio]

It is desirable to have all as your supporters, but it is'nt realistic to think so.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:35 am
They are tolerated in some capitalist countries.

But if people chose to be racist by their own will but don't harm any other and keep for themselves, would they yet be smashed because of their opinions? Or another example, tribal peoples like the Zulus and Massai, or religious groups like the Amish, would they be tolerated?
How can you be racist and not harm other people???

Next, you'll be arguing that we should allow communities to be capitalist if they want to.

[Fawkes]

S/He means directly physically harming people.

Edit: I am assuming.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Fawkes+January 11, 2007 01:36 am--> (Fawkes @ January 11, 2007 01:36 am)
Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 10, 2007 07:21 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 12:33 am
Those ethnic loyalties would most likely be much more prevalent immediately following the revolution and slowly die away as time goes on and people become more used to the idea of true equality.
Then how do you envisage that the revolution will be achieved in the first place? Surely the working class will have to transcend such divisions before it is fit to take on capitalism and initiate a new social order.
Like Serpent said, a large portion of the working class has to be united, but not all of it. [/b]
When it comes to revolutions there's only two sides. Either you're with it or against it.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+January 11, 2007 12:43 am--> (Citizen Zero @ January 11, 2007 12:43 am)
[email protected] 11, 2007 01:35 am
They are tolerated in some capitalist countries.

But if people chose to be racist by their own will but don't harm any other and keep for themselves, would they yet be smashed because of their opinions? Or another example, tribal peoples like the Zulus and Massai, or religious groups like the Amish, would they be tolerated?
How can you be racist and not harm other people???

Next, you'll be arguing that we should allow communities to be capitalist if they want to. [/b]
Well, by only intermingling with those opinions in a closed group and not attacking any other group or individual physically or with intent to cause harm.

It won't be disallowed to form capitalist communities, but they would'nt be so successful given that the communities in the model I propose does'nt administrate the production, which is taken care of by a service called the technate. Everyone will be provided with quality of life to a very low cost, so the incentive for black markets to flourish would be rather low.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:47 am
S/He means directly physically harming people.

Edit: I am assuming.
Well I could be capitalist without "directly physically harming people." Look at Bill Gates.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Serpent+January 11, 2007 01:48 am--> (Serpent @ January 11, 2007 01:48 am)
Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 11, 2007 12:43 am

[email protected] 11, 2007 01:35 am
They are tolerated in some capitalist countries.

But if people chose to be racist by their own will but don't harm any other and keep for themselves, would they yet be smashed because of their opinions? Or another example, tribal peoples like the Zulus and Massai, or religious groups like the Amish, would they be tolerated?
How can you be racist and not harm other people???

Next, you'll be arguing that we should allow communities to be capitalist if they want to.
Well, by only intermingling with those opinions in a closed group and not attacking any other group or individual physically or with intent to cause harm.

It won't be disallowed to form capitalist communities, but they would'nt be so successful given that the communities in the model I propose does'nt administrate the production, which is taken care of by a service called the technate. Everyone will be provided with quality of life to a very low cost, so the incentive for black markets to flourish would be rather low. [/b]
So who'd administer the 'Technate'?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+January 11, 2007 12:47 am--> (Citizen Zero @ January 11, 2007 12:47 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:36 am

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 10, 2007 07:21 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 12:33 am
Those ethnic loyalties would most likely be much more prevalent immediately following the revolution and slowly die away as time goes on and people become more used to the idea of true equality.
Then how do you envisage that the revolution will be achieved in the first place? Surely the working class will have to transcend such divisions before it is fit to take on capitalism and initiate a new social order.
Like Serpent said, a large portion of the working class has to be united, but not all of it.
When it comes to revolutions there's only two sides. Either you're with it or against it. [/b]
Hahaha... that is just to put up everyone that are sceptical but not hostile against the revolution.

If we assume that 20% of the people are for a total change, 10% vehemently against it, and 70% apathetic, it is still good [as long as the change is about to occur]. Why put up those 70% who are apathetic and get 80% resistance?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+January 11, 2007 12:51 am--> (Citizen Zero @ January 11, 2007 12:51 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:48 am

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 11, 2007 12:43 am

[email protected] 11, 2007 01:35 am
They are tolerated in some capitalist countries.

But if people chose to be racist by their own will but don't harm any other and keep for themselves, would they yet be smashed because of their opinions? Or another example, tribal peoples like the Zulus and Massai, or religious groups like the Amish, would they be tolerated?
How can you be racist and not harm other people???

Next, you'll be arguing that we should allow communities to be capitalist if they want to.
Well, by only intermingling with those opinions in a closed group and not attacking any other group or individual physically or with intent to cause harm.

It won't be disallowed to form capitalist communities, but they would'nt be so successful given that the communities in the model I propose does'nt administrate the production, which is taken care of by a service called the technate. Everyone will be provided with quality of life to a very low cost, so the incentive for black markets to flourish would be rather low.
So who'd administer the 'Technate'? [/b]
The people, as personnel within the sequences. They are also the benefactors of it's work, as people who are living within autonomous communes where they may realise their own potential.

Remember, working hours is a function of automatisation. 16 hour weeks is probably not an impossibility to achieve. ;)

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Serpent+January 11, 2007 01:52 am--> (Serpent @ January 11, 2007 01:52 am)
Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 11, 2007 12:47 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:36 am

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 10, 2007 07:21 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 12:33 am
Those ethnic loyalties would most likely be much more prevalent immediately following the revolution and slowly die away as time goes on and people become more used to the idea of true equality.
Then how do you envisage that the revolution will be achieved in the first place? Surely the working class will have to transcend such divisions before it is fit to take on capitalism and initiate a new social order.
Like Serpent said, a large portion of the working class has to be united, but not all of it.
When it comes to revolutions there's only two sides. Either you're with it or against it.
Hahaha... that is just to put up everyone that are sceptical but not hostile against the revolution.

If we assume that 20% of the people are for a total change, 10% vehemently against it, and 70% apathetic, it is still good [as long as the change is about to occur]. Why put up those 70% who are apathetic and get 80% resistance? [/b]
If 70% are apathetic, you don't get a revolution. You get a putsch.

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+January 10, 2007 07:47 pm--> (Citizen Zero @ January 10, 2007 07:47 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:36 am

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 10, 2007 07:21 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 12:33 am
Those ethnic loyalties would most likely be much more prevalent immediately following the revolution and slowly die away as time goes on and people become more used to the idea of true equality.
Then how do you envisage that the revolution will be achieved in the first place? Surely the working class will have to transcend such divisions before it is fit to take on capitalism and initiate a new social order.
Like Serpent said, a large portion of the working class has to be united, but not all of it.
When it comes to revolutions there's only two sides. Either you're with it or against it. [/b]
Workers can be against it, I don't see what you're trying to say.


Well I could be capitalist without "directly physically harming people." Look at Bill Gates.

I can see what you're saying but Bill Gates is a bad example because he does directly harm people by employing them as wage-slaves.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+January 11, 2007 12:54 am--> (Citizen Zero @ January 11, 2007 12:54 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:52 am

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 11, 2007 12:47 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:36 am

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 10, 2007 07:21 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 12:33 am
Those ethnic loyalties would most likely be much more prevalent immediately following the revolution and slowly die away as time goes on and people become more used to the idea of true equality.
Then how do you envisage that the revolution will be achieved in the first place? Surely the working class will have to transcend such divisions before it is fit to take on capitalism and initiate a new social order.
Like Serpent said, a large portion of the working class has to be united, but not all of it.
When it comes to revolutions there's only two sides. Either you're with it or against it.
Hahaha... that is just to put up everyone that are sceptical but not hostile against the revolution.

If we assume that 20% of the people are for a total change, 10% vehemently against it, and 70% apathetic, it is still good [as long as the change is about to occur]. Why put up those 70% who are apathetic and get 80% resistance?
If 70% are apathetic, you don't get a revolution. You get a putsch. [/b]
I am not endorsing violence, I am only endorsing what is necessary. If we get into a situation where most people have lost most faith in the system, but does mostly engage to survive, we should try to mobilise as many of them as possible, but not force them to take side, since that would push over a lot of them towards the side of the establishment.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Fawkes+January 11, 2007 01:55 am--> (Fawkes @ January 11, 2007 01:55 am)
Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 10, 2007 07:47 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:36 am

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 10, 2007 07:21 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 12:33 am
Those ethnic loyalties would most likely be much more prevalent immediately following the revolution and slowly die away as time goes on and people become more used to the idea of true equality.
Then how do you envisage that the revolution will be achieved in the first place? Surely the working class will have to transcend such divisions before it is fit to take on capitalism and initiate a new social order.
Like Serpent said, a large portion of the working class has to be united, but not all of it.
When it comes to revolutions there's only two sides. Either you're with it or against it.
Workers can be against it, I don't see what you're trying to say.


Well I could be capitalist without "directly physically harming people." Look at Bill Gates.

I can see what you're saying but Bill Gates is a bad example because he does directly harm people by employing them as wage-slaves. [/b]
So he "physically harms" them by employing them?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+January 11, 2007 12:57 am--> (Citizen Zero @ January 11, 2007 12:57 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:55 am

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 10, 2007 07:47 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:36 am

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected]ary 10, 2007 07:21 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 12:33 am
Those ethnic loyalties would most likely be much more prevalent immediately following the revolution and slowly die away as time goes on and people become more used to the idea of true equality.
Then how do you envisage that the revolution will be achieved in the first place? Surely the working class will have to transcend such divisions before it is fit to take on capitalism and initiate a new social order.
Like Serpent said, a large portion of the working class has to be united, but not all of it.
When it comes to revolutions there's only two sides. Either you're with it or against it.
Workers can be against it, I don't see what you're trying to say.


Well I could be capitalist without "directly physically harming people." Look at Bill Gates.

I can see what you're saying but Bill Gates is a bad example because he does directly harm people by employing them as wage-slaves.
So he "physically harms" them by employing them? [/b]
Bill Gates does a lot of bad stuff by making energy-inefficient solutions which are non-optimal. But I think it is childish to look upon capitalists as "morally evil", and not recognise the wider aspect that most of us would be able to live a much better life than we enjoy today without having to exploit others, destroying the environment or work our asses off.

[Hit The North]

Serpent:


I am not endorsing violence, I am only endorsing what is necessary. If we get into a situation where most people have lost most faith in the system, but does mostly engage to survive, we should try to mobilise as many of them as possible, but not force them to take side, since that would push over a lot of them towards the side of the establishment.

It's the nature of revolutions to force people to take sides. If the majority are not engaged in actively transforming society, then it is no revolution.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 11, 2007 01:05 am
Serpent:


I am not endorsing violence, I am only endorsing what is necessary. If we get into a situation where most people have lost most faith in the system, but does mostly engage to survive, we should try to mobilise as many of them as possible, but not force them to take side, since that would push over a lot of them towards the side of the establishment.

It's the nature of revolutions to force people to take sides. If the majority are not engaged in actively transforming society, then it is no revolution.
That would have after the nexus of control is taken over by the umbrella organisation representing the forces of progress. Revolutionary change does not necessairily mean strong, musculous industrial workers aka 1848 or Soviet propaganda posters, barricades, or a simple takeover by the entire people of the state, but the total transformation of economy and infrastructure happening in a continuous, scientific process after the nexus is under the control of progress.

[Fawkes]

Okay, employ was probably the wrong word, I should have used "keeping them as wage slaves".

P.S. Serpent: do you have any links that I could go to to learn more about technocracy and what a technocratic society would look like?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:09 am
Okay, employ was probably the wrong word, I should have used "keeping them as wage slaves".

P.S. Serpent: do you have any links that I could go to to learn more about technocracy and what a technocratic society would look like?
www.technocracyeurope.eu

:)

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Serpent+January 11, 2007 02:08 am--> (Serpent @ January 11, 2007 02:08 am)
Citizen [email protected] 11, 2007 01:05 am
Serpent:


I am not endorsing violence, I am only endorsing what is necessary. If we get into a situation where most people have lost most faith in the system, but does mostly engage to survive, we should try to mobilise as many of them as possible, but not force them to take side, since that would push over a lot of them towards the side of the establishment.

It's the nature of revolutions to force people to take sides. If the majority are not engaged in actively transforming society, then it is no revolution.
That would have after the nexus of control is taken over by the umbrella organisation representing the forces of progress. Revolutionary change does not necessairily mean strong, musculous industrial workers aka 1848 or Soviet propaganda posters, barricades, or a simple takeover by the entire people of the state, but the total transformation of economy and infrastructure happening in a continuous, scientific process after the nexus is under the control of progress. [/b]
Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree. For me, revolutions are people engaged in consciously changing their society and changing themselves in the process. An enlightened 'Technate' is no substitute for that.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+January 11, 2007 01:18 am--> (Citizen Zero @ January 11, 2007 01:18 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:08 am

Citizen [email protected] 11, 2007 01:05 am
Serpent:


I am not endorsing violence, I am only endorsing what is necessary. If we get into a situation where most people have lost most faith in the system, but does mostly engage to survive, we should try to mobilise as many of them as possible, but not force them to take side, since that would push over a lot of them towards the side of the establishment.

It's the nature of revolutions to force people to take sides. If the majority are not engaged in actively transforming society, then it is no revolution.
That would have after the nexus of control is taken over by the umbrella organisation representing the forces of progress. Revolutionary change does not necessairily mean strong, musculous industrial workers aka 1848 or Soviet propaganda posters, barricades, or a simple takeover by the entire people of the state, but the total transformation of economy and infrastructure happening in a continuous, scientific process after the nexus is under the control of progress.
Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree. For me, revolutions are people engaged in consciously changing their society and changing themselves in the process. An enlightened 'Technate' is no substitute for that. [/b]
I fail to see why people should be forced to take part. Some people, like children and disabled, should not be exposed to that out of ethical reasons, others are simply anti-social or too immature. What we need is a relative majority, not an abosolute majority, even though an absolute majority is desired.

The technate is not intended for a revolution, but for the distribution of "the highest possible standard of life, to the greatest possible number of people for the longest possible time."

What we are talking about is how to get there [or to parecon, primitivist barter economics, or gift economics, democratic socialism or whatever the revolutionary wants to get].

[Hiero]

You have to consider what would be the conclusion of indigenous nations. They often live in their own communities in capitalist society, and through struggle have gained rights to limited forms of autonomy. I would say that in a socialist society these would be the only true forms of "communes" and "subcultures".

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 07:39 am
You have to consider what would be the conclusion of indigenous nations. They often live in their own communities in capitalist society, and through struggle have gained rights to limited forms of autonomy. I would say that in a socialist society these would be the only true forms of "communes" and "subcultures".
One question is though that there exists other problems that those which are caused by capitalism. One example is the prevalent conflict between Sapmí and Swedes in northern Swedes. Through law, Sapmí are the only ones granted the right to own reindeer, and as fast as one of their reindeers is maimed by a vehicle, it becomes insurance demands. But not if their reindeer is destroying anything on a farm area owned by a Swede. Of course, one could claim that this is caused by property, but then comes the issue of all Sapmí reindeer should be communalised [moreover, the reindeer half-nomad lifestyle is subsidized through money, otherwise the Sapmí would'nt afford it]. Another thing is that the Sapmí, out of the population of 1 million in northern Sweden, is about 30.000 individuals, where as about 6.000 own reindeers.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+January 11, 2007 12:54 am--> (Citizen Zero @ January 11, 2007 12:54 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:52 am

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 11, 2007 12:47 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:36 am

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 10, 2007 07:21 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 12:33 am
Those ethnic loyalties would most likely be much more prevalent immediately following the revolution and slowly die away as time goes on and people become more used to the idea of true equality.
Then how do you envisage that the revolution will be achieved in the first place? Surely the working class will have to transcend such divisions before it is fit to take on capitalism and initiate a new social order.
Like Serpent said, a large portion of the working class has to be united, but not all of it.
When it comes to revolutions there's only two sides. Either you're with it or against it.
Hahaha... that is just to put up everyone that are sceptical but not hostile against the revolution.

If we assume that 20% of the people are for a total change, 10% vehemently against it, and 70% apathetic, it is still good [as long as the change is about to occur]. Why put up those 70% who are apathetic and get 80% resistance?
If 70% are apathetic, you don't get a revolution. You get a putsch. [/b]
The thing that seems to be most often forgotten or ignored is the fact that capitalist education has conditioned the large part of the working class to be apathetic in politics and the class struggle, and complacent towards the status quo. This means as long as capitalism and it's education system are in place we will never be able to get the majority of the working class active in the revolution until after the capitalist government has been overthrown, and it's conditioning of the working class has been broken.

[Dimentio]

Exactly. 5% active is a really good potential number.

[Dimentio]

I still would like to discuss the Amish and the Massai as examples of groups with hierarchic, non-egalitarian traditions [mark well that these groups are also examples of traditional communism with no private property at all].