Working Empirically: Creating a commune

[Baconator]

Working Empirically: Creating a commune
by baconater

To socialists and communist of all hues,

Lately I have been browsing the RevLeft forums silently lurking from the shadows. Various interesting threads have been formulated and a great focus on the forums tends to be around the validity of property rights. It is very clear to this reader that the vast majority 'revolutionaries' utterly deny the validity of property rights. Various non sequiturs such as exclusivity of property concludes the incessant and aggressive initiation of the use of force by property owners. One of the grand conclusions drawn is the validity of slavery. These are serious charges against the validity of property rights and I , as a rational human being , do not desire slavery upon any people. Thus I can accept that property rights are invalid if this is observed empirically.

My proposition:

Empiricism is really important when it comes to observation of human behavior under certain social systems. It is one thing to form an abstract theory which could be useful , that theory only really gains substance when it is put into practice and observed to yield the predicted results of the theory. So the theory is that validity of property rights necessarily concludes slavery and the initiation of the use of force which I think we can all agree are unethical consequences. So, the ideal ethical system must be opposite of valid property rights and that is of course , no property rights are valid.

If nobody has the ability to exercise property rights then consequences will be the greatest good and freedom for human society. This is excellent since it is a testable hypothesis.

How is this testable in a capitalistic society?

Such a hypothesis is still testable in a capitalistic society since the only phenomenon to be observed is how resources would be disposed of without individuals having the ability to exercise property rights. People would have to volunteer to set up a communal living standard.

Ok, so how do you expect to do that?

Well, based on my observations here on the forums people have divulged some useful personal information. Revleft has some members that have quite a bit of personal assets at their disposal , be it that they have a large income , stocks and investments, and accumulated wealth in savings. Since most revlefters shun large disparities in wealth, especially due to the market, this is great because the revlefters with more assets can lead the charge. Revleft could socialize in real life.

What do you mean?

Revleft can devise a spectacular project. Real forum members, the revolutionaries, could formant their own peaceful revolution through taking action in their personal lives. The members with the most wealth on the board could start a charity of sorts to have everyone pitch in and collectively pull together their resources. This process might take sometime but its definitely attainable.

Attainable for what?

Once enough resources are collectivized in a fund entrusted to some dedicated revolutionaries, those resources could be spent on purchasing some building(s) to make for a living quarters. Either you can purchase something like this already in existence available to buy or you can pay for the resources to construct a communal living quarters on a location thats democratically voted on from the forums. Once this is finished revlefters can bring , as much as possible , everything they own to this communal living quarters and once they get there they can immediately socialize those things so everyone has access to them.

So we would communally live together?

Yes, and based on communist principles. I understand that you would still have to pay some bills to the capitalist local governments or companies for things like water and electricity but that really shouldn't be a problem. Though these are bills, I don't see why a socialistic approach can't be taken torwards them. Those that originally come in with the most resources before socialization would be responsible for the majority share of the bills or whoever the community votes to pay.

So how do you think it would work?

Well, it would work how it works, I can't predict the future. All I know is that the primary rule in this experiment is that nobody can exercise property rights. This means that nobody can claim exclusivity over anything and disposal of all resources would have to be voted for by everybody.

Socialized bedrooms:

I don't think there would be any discrimination between older and younger , male and female, or any sort of nonsense like that. Most rooms would likely be door less or at least have no locks. By locking or sealing a space you are implicitly exercising exclusivity.

Socialized kitchen:

Those that have the ability to provide the food will provide it so everyone has equal access. Whatever is to be consumed by each must be voted upon. Rules would have to be set in place to make sure nobody is sneaking in extra food without informing and sharing with the entire communal living quarters.

Socialized bathrooms:

No doors and/or locks. Private spaced showers could be problematic. An open shower space with no barriers and soap , shampoo, tampons , etc are to be provided by those who have the ability to do so. All, regardless of their ability, have equal access to the supplies. Cleaning arrangements would be probably scheduled and decided by democratic vote.

Socialized Entertainment:

People would bring over their stuff before it gets socialized. I think one guy on revleft mentioned he had a fairly nice plasma TV. Well once this is socialized it would be available to all to the exclusivity of no one. It would be problematic if everyone had their own TV and there is no reason why people couldn't use any TV they wanted if there are more than one. If there is a dispute on who wants to watch what or what programs are allowed to be watched , this could be democratically voted upon. Computers and other forms of entertainment would run much along the same principles.

Socialized Vehicles:

People would bring over their personal vehicles before socialization. Once the vehicles are socialized they are accessible to everyone to the exclusivity of no one. If there is a dispute on who uses the vehicle at the same time , this will be democratically voted on. Another option is to have the commune sell off the vehicles and purchases buses or large vans so more people can get around.

Socialized clothing :

Clothes should be held in communal closets. Democratic vote will decide on who does laundry. You grab whats available and they would probably sorted out in sizes. Same thing with shoes.

Extreme case:

It could be that someone comes down with a terrible illness. Everyone would pitch in for the resources necessary to help this person. If the person needs blood or something the commune will vote for who gets poked and gives the blood. In an even more dire case such as if someone needs a kidney transplant , the commune will vote for someone to have the positive obligation to give that person a kidney.

Will it be like this perpetually?

Yes. When you get married, the commune must approve of it through democratic vote since you would be bringing in someone ( or possibly a fellow commune member) into the commune. Children must be ok-ed b the community as well since they will be consumers of communal resources. You would spend the rest of your life living like this but it shouldn't be too bad since this , in theory , would bring the greatest happiness to the collective.

If people decide to leave for living more personal and proprietarian based lives, the experiment would fail. In theory the experiment would revolutionize things and more people would be drawn in.

Open door policy :

The commune itself shouldn't be excluded to anyone on the outside.



Conclusion:

Just some ideas I thought I'd throw out there. I think it is actually imperative that for the sake of the revolution and validation of core communist theory that such things be put immediately into practice in the personal lives of the committed revolutionaries. Empirical validation from a most personal and proximate level would either confirm or contradict the predictions of the theory.
Revlefters could actually then speak with integrity if all posted on these forums from the commune. They are actually living their values and this deserves respect at least in my humble opinion.


So should we test the hypothesis?

[BobKKKindle$]

Communists do not reject "property" as a concept as we acknowledge that people should have the right to own personal possessions, as the private use of these objects does not involve the exploitation of other people and it would be unfair if people were forced to share everything, but we reject property in the form of ownership of the means of production (otherwise known as private, as distinct from personal, property) because we believe that everyone should be able to benefit from production, not just a privileged minority, as production is a collective activity which requires cooperation on a large scale and so it is wrong to allocate the financial rewards solely to any individual or small group. What this means is that much of what you posted above (for example, requiring everyone to abandon the use of locks) is totally irrelevant and is not an accurate representation of the kind of society that we actually envisage. However, putting these objections aside, the idea of setting up a commune based on communist principles and people trying to isolate themselves from capitalist society is a flawed approach for two main reasons - firstly, communism can only exist under conditions of material abundance and these conditions cannot be achieved in the absence of revolution on a global scale, simply because all the resources which are needed to produce the goods everyone wants cannot be located in any individual country or region, and secondly, as long as people continue to inhabit a capitalist society, ideology based on capitalist concepts such as private property and the use of other people for personal gain will continue to influence the way we interact with others, such that any commune founded on idealism will eventually fail and give way to the kind of exploitative personal relationships we see in "mainstream" capitalist society. This is one of the reasons why a transition period is needed after the revolution, before the creation of a communist society, as explained by Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Program where he argued that a socialist society would maintain differences in income, and allocate reward according to how long someone is willing to work:


What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. If you want empirical evidence of socialist ideas being implemented within the framework of capitalism, then you should research case studies of workers self-management such as the fabricas sin patrones (factories without bosses) movement in Argentina, and the revolutionary seizure of workplaces during the 1936 Spanish Revolution, as these cases studies show that workers do not need the control of managers and are capable of controlling production by their own initiative through democratic structures such as workplace assemblies.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The problem with creating a commune to test our ideas is that it would have to be an extremely BIG commune. Communism - at least the kind of communism that Marxists envision - requires an entire industrial economy. We're not talking about a few hundred people on a communal farm. Communism cannot work in a purely agrarian society. We're talking about a whole modern country (at least), complete with factories, power plants and so forth.

We'd love to show you how communism works. Do you have a small country to spare?

[BobKKKindle$]

We'd love to show you how communism works. Do you have a small country to spare?

A small country or even a very large country is not sufficient to construct socialism, especially when we consider that revolution is most likely to occur in countries which suffer from a severe lack of economic development, as shown by the failure of the communist experiment in Russia, where the failure of the revolution to spread abroad (especially to advanced states such as Germany) led to the degeneration of the revolution and the rise of a new bureacracy which subverted the original principles and objectives of the Bolshevik party. Socialism will be international, or it will not be.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm still trying to find one functional anarcho-capitalist society, Baconator, but all I'm coming up with is -- well, some pricks in Somalia who consolidated power in the form of tribalism. How about you start a commune since social anarchism has already demonstrated itself as a success?

Your comments about socialized entertainment, bedrooms, and cars show that as a consequence of mental masturbation you still don't know jackshit about communism. Remove "ration anarchist" from your profile before you do a disservice to us all. You're neither. Nor do you care to be either, as evident by this shit.

Left-anarchists: 10+
"Right/royal"-anarchists: 0 (still waiting...)

[Plagueround]

A combined 455 posts and he still doesn't get the difference between personal possessions and privately owned property. Cute.

[GPDP]

Socialized Bedrooms

Stopped reading there. Get a clue.

[Bud Struggle]

Socialized Bedrooms

Stopped reading there. Get a clue.

That's the only thing I LIKE about Communism. :(

:lol:

[GPDP]

Hey, I'm not bashing socialized bedrooms per se. :cool: I just recognize that they're not a requirement for communism, see?

[pusher robot]

Perhaps a clear, bright-line rule distinguishing "possesions" from "means of production" would be helpful.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Perhaps a clear, bright-line rule distinguishing "possesions" from "means of production" would be helpful.

Bright line? I think it's fairly obvious what communists want socialized, and what they don't. At the very least the comment about socializing cars and bedrooms is extremely off-putting.

How about this? In return for a line that makes Big Bird look petty, capitalists finally determine whether egoism, natural rights, or consequentialnesm is the true method of property acquisition? Every time I talk to a capitalist I have to first decipher their belief on property to even have a decent conversation. :laugh:

[Baconator]

This is rather disappointing indeed. People here prefer to speak of communist principles in the abstract as if all should be binded to them for the greater good but these same principles applied to their personal lives take on a whole new, not so desirable, meaning.

If communist principles are universal and logical, then they should be applicable to all human beings, at any time , in any situation and still be valid.

If this is not the case, well then...

[pusher robot]

Bright line? I think it's fairly obvious what communists want socialized, and what they don't. At the very least the comment about socializing cars and bedrooms is extremely off-putting.

How about this? In return for a line that makes Big Bird look petty, capitalists finally determine whether egoism, natural rights, or consequentialnesm is the true method of property acquisition? Every time I talk to a capitalist I have to first decipher their belief on property to even have a decent conversation. :laugh:

Okay, suppose I own a car. I drive it. I possess it. Fine, right? It's a personal possession. Suppose that I rent it out to someone else. Suddenly it becomes a means of production. But it's the same car.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You are more dense than iridium, Sir Bacon.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Okay, suppose I own a car. I drive it. I possess it. Fine, right? It's a personal possession. Suppose that I rent it out to someone else. Suddenly it becomes a means of production. But it's the same car.

Rent it out using what? A private currency? Go ahead. The car is a finished good. It's yours. There is a large disagreement on the forum over whether this action constitutes a market or bartering action, but either way I haven't met one RevLefter who gets uppity about possessions being used for spare "change."

[Baconator]

Perhaps a clear, bright-line rule distinguishing "possesions" from "means of production" would be helpful.

Right. I've researched this and asked this question many times and have yet to find anything objective clearly distinguishing the two. Its like I think my truck is mine because I can exercise property rights over it, but I change the terminology into possession to not admit that I'm actually legitimizing property rights over my truck. But then, if a majority of comrades decide my truck is to now be used as a 'means of production' do I have my truck taken away from me and why is force justified to do that?

Tomatoes are tomatoes. Nothing about tomatoes changes dramatically in reality so that is not a tomato anymore. But a basket of tomatoes can have contradictory properties according to the communist paradigm. If the tomatoes are just to be consumed in their current state, people may exercise property rights over them. If the tomatoes are to be used to make ketchup, those property rights are no longer valid for the same batch of tomatoes. Its quite amazing actually.

[Baconator]

Okay, suppose I own a car. I drive it. I possess it. Fine, right? It's a personal possession. Suppose that I rent it out to someone else. Suddenly it becomes a means of production. But it's the same car.

Exactly. This is why I feel when I'm researching communist principles I get transported into a Platonic realm of forms. Clearly that car you posses and the exact same car the next day you decide to rent to someone are two different things. You are not seeing the total essence of the car today and tomorrow. The properties change based on some transcendental value.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm still awaiting on your answer to whether you believe in natural rights, egoism, or consequentialism as the proper capitalist property system, and why your distinction is so better than the alternative. Stop pretending that capitalists have any solid conclusions.


But then, if a majority of comrades decide my truck is to now be used as a 'means of production' do I have my truck taken away from me and why is force justified to do that?Ha. And if a strong defense agency decides that someone can own vast tracts of land (http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/3444.aspx) without even mixing their labor, they're justified eh? Hypocrite.


Nothing about tomatoes changes dramatically in reality so that is not a tomato anymore.Nobody is arguing about an objective reality, Ayn Rand. I feel like I'm reading a bad Goodkind novel (well, that's already implied). Communists are arguing about the use of items. The distinction is so obvious to anyone not influenced to the dogpile with rhetoric I debate even going further. A tomato is a tomato, but there's a world of difference between eating a tomato and throwing it at my head. There's also a world of difference between owning half of the tomato farms and growing a tomato in your backyard. There will be a great deal of coercion involved in not having private households, or private yarns. Everyone and their dead mother agrees to that. But if, hypothetically, I'm encircled with your property and the conditions for my escape are limited to your pleasures, it isn't an act of coercion, eh?

No theory is perfect. Anyone who thinks their utopia will come into fruition - and that mostly includes anarcho-capitalists like yourself - is actively engaged in mental masturbation. Coercion will never be completely eliminated, but it can be reduced to the lowest possible denominator through socialism. Yours just legitimizes it as a proper function of society.

[Baconator]

You have no property ( or lets make up 'possessional' rights) over a basket of tomatoes if they are to be used to make ketchup. The tomatoes become a means of production.
In the communist paradigm the danger of someone owning a basket of tomatoes to make ketchup is the same as using a basket of tomatoes to throw at someone. Got it.

[Baconator]

There is only difference in scale when owning 2 acres of ripe tomatoes and a backyard of ripe tomatoes. The principles for both are exactly the same. If you have a garden or some acres of land, its still taking away from the common.

So again, if it is a question of scale, what objective criteria is used to determined how much sq. inches of land I can own in order to have property rights be valid and at what point do they become invalid? This is exactly the same as a creationist arguing that micro-evolution is OK but macro-evolution is bunk.

I'm thinking perhaps a 100 sq ft garden = property (possessional) rights but anything above that 101+ something objectively changes and the prop/possessional rights are no longer valid. I'm still trying to find this objective characteristic. Perhaps someone can explain how its not subjective.

[Baconator]

Back on topic. We don't have anyone willing to live their values here then?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

There is only difference in scale when owning 2 acres of ripe tomatoes and a backyard of ripe tomatoes. The principles for both are exactly the same. If you have a garden or some acres of land, its still taking away from the common.
Just a few months ago you were touting the Thatcherite line that the commons and forests don't exist. Wutupwiddat?


I'm thinking perhaps a 100 sq ft garden = property (possessional) rights but anything above that 101+ something objectively changes and the prop/possessional rights are no longer valid. I'm still trying to find this objective characteristic. Perhaps someone can explain how its not subjective.For someone who surely masturbates to the concept of homesteading, you have a proverbial disliking for answering someone's question before presenting new ones. You can't decide whether you agree with Rothbard or David Friedman more? Is it because both are subjective? Someone better attach magnets to Ayn Rand's corpse; that energy wasted on her spinning could fuel the entire globe.


So again, if it is a question of scale,It's not a question of scale. Someone residing in the heart of the Sahara by themselves can lay pretty legitimate claims to whatever they create, even if it's a golden tower. Like I said, if you're going to argue that anarchism comprises a situation where I'm encircled with private property and the conditions for my escape are limited to your pleasures, you're batshit crazy. Get out of college and see the real world for once.

Somewhere in the cosmos Henry George and Benjamin Tucker are busting a gut watching your defense for statism.

[Plagueround]

Back on topic. We don't have anyone willing to live their values here then?

How many times are we going to have to knock this strawman down before you give up?
Your scenario (I shudder to think that a real, living breathing person wrote that up) did not even come close to any of the ideas that communist advocate, all it did was show:
A)You are unable to distinguish private and personal property/privacy (No one is going to suddenly decide your truck is now their "means of production" if they already establish it as a private possession). If you honestly need some objectivist pseudo-philosophy to wrap your head around it, I don't know what to tell you.
B) You don't understand why setting up our own little commune removed from the international struggles people face at the hands of imperialism and capitalism would not be "living by our values", it would be sticking our head in the sand and would still be embracing the capitalist system since we would still need products and land agreements with capitalism. This does not automatically discredit communism, nor does it make any other feudalist nutjob ideas you have "universal". I also have to ask, what has prevented you from living anarcho-cappie ideas? What have you done to live by those principals?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

What? You mean communities could establish a principle that once something achieves the status of personal possession, it cannot be deemed private property again? I'm flabbergasted. That's almost rational.

Edit- Even anarcho-capitalists admit they're subjectivist.


Libertarians have dealt with this apparent problem. If someone owns a plot of land and you buy up the land in a circle around him, it is not legitimate for you to prohibit him from leaving his land or to make outrageous demands in exchange for so allowing him. You are obligated to grant him an easement.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/3444/52956.aspx#52956

Looks like the libertarian socialist perspective (as seen in my signature) is accredited by even anarcho-capitalists. Good thing. I would rather live in a geoist minarchist society where private land not occupied and in use pays rent than see such shit passed off as anarchism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Okay, suppose I own a car. I drive it. I possess it. Fine, right? It's a personal possession. Suppose that I rent it out to someone else. Suddenly it becomes a means of production. But it's the same car.
Except you can't rent it out to someone else under communism, seeing how there is no money with which that person could pay rent.

[Bud Struggle]

Except you can't rent it out to someone else under communism, seeing how there is no money with which that person could pay rent.

No need for money--I'd rent out my Yugo for a hot night of adulterous passion with the helmetmakers beautiful wife. ;)

[Robert]

We don't have anyone willing to live their values here then?

Au contraire. There's a handful.:cool:

[BobKKKindle$]

Back on topic. We don't have anyone willing to live their values here then?

You presumably don't pay any taxes then, and also refuse to use any service provided by the government, including roads and...the internet?

As for the issue of distinguishing between personal property and private property, this is clearly not always an easy issue, and I think there are some cases where it might be justified to confiscate personal property if someone owned an item of great potential benefit for the community but was not willing to let other people use that item - for example, the only computer in an impoverished village, or, when faced with the problem of homelessness, a large house.

[Nusocialist]

You have no property ( or lets make up 'possessional' rights) over a basket of tomatoes if they are to be used to make ketchup. The tomatoes become a means of production.
In the communist paradigm the danger of someone owning a basket of tomatoes to make ketchup is the same as using a basket of tomatoes to throw at someone. Got it.We're not ancaps we don't go in for universal rules whereby everything can be worked out by mixing your labour with unused property and by axiomatic rules of property derived from this.

As in alot of real-life human affairs the line may be blurry but it is the best we have and we can work with it.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Baconator is a class example of how capitalism is a religion.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Even the minimum of factory occupations, worker buyouts, etc. fit more into the CLASS-STRUGGLIST agenda than Baconator's absurdity, which would only serve to remove class-strugglists from the CLASS STRUGGLE.

[Nusocialist]

Baconator is a class example of how capitalism is a religion.
To be fair many ideologies can become this to some people including socialist and communist ones.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

True. True. Although I must say for all the defenses put forward about capitalism, it seems Marx's descriptions are still the truest in the face of everything else. I'm constantly amazed that Ayn Rand is championed as some intellectual when a pre-grad could destroy her objectivist statements. And I kid you not, Austrian schoolers are in love with such profundities as finders-keepers.

[Nusocialist]

Marx has his own problems. Not everything can be worked out by the relationship to the means of production. I think it was Marcuse who said you couldn't blame trouble with your girlfriend on the capitalist means of production.

I find Anarchist thinkers are much more rounded and less dogmatic personally. There are few who can rivil Kropotkin or Lewis Mumford or Leopold Kohr for breadth of thinking and lack of silly dogmaticism. Although even alot of anarchists don't seem to realise it isn't the late 19th century any more and the large proletariat of manual workers has dispersed. there are people now in the anarchist forum who seem to think preaching to Cornish hotel clerks about bourgeois oppression will make them revolutionary.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Marx has his own problems. Not everything can be worked out by the relationship to the means of production. I think it was Marcuse who said you couldn't blame trouble with your girlfriend on the capitalist means of production.

I find Anarchist thinkers are much more rounded and less dogmatic personally. There are few who can rivil Kropotkin or Lewis Mumford or Leopold Kohr for breadth of thinking and lack of silly dogmaticism. Although even alot of anarchists don't seem to realise it isn't the late 19th century any more and the large proletariat of manual workers has dispersed. there are people now in the anarchist forum who seem to think preaching to Cornish hotel clerks about bourgeois oppression will make them revolutionary.

You and I appear very alike. ;)

[Nusocialist]

You and I appear very alike. ;)In some ways indeed, but I'm quite unique I seem to find :D.

You must be the same GeneCosta who used to post at Theologyonline? This is Nugnostic.

[Baconator]

You presumably don't pay any taxes then, and also refuse to use any service provided by the government, including roads and...the internet?

As for the issue of distinguishing between personal property and private property, this is clearly not always an easy issue, and I think there are some cases where it might be justified to confiscate personal property if someone owned an item of great potential benefit for the community but was not willing to let other people use that item - for example, the only computer in an impoverished village, or, when faced with the problem of homelessness, a large house.

I still pay taxes but thats only because I'm forced to. Nobody is using force against you to prevent setting up a testable commune in your personal life.

[Baconator]

Au contraire. There's a handful.:cool:

Actually there is none. I sort of figured the notion of applying communist principles to one's own personal life wouldn't sit well with many here. Its quite easy to abstract the notion and claim that all ought to be binded to those principles while refusing to be your own test subject. ;)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

In some ways indeed, but I'm quite unique I seem to find :D.

You must be the same GeneCosta who used to post at Theologyonline? This is Nugnostic.

Hey. I was just looking through your posts at ReligiousForum the other day. What a coincidence. I was actually amused to find I had independently reached similar conclusions to your own a year after I met you - right down to an appreciation for non-royal Lockeanism, geoism, and libertarian socialism. Before that point I had thought you were silly-nilly, but I repent. :)

[BobKKKindle$]

I still pay taxes but thats only because I'm forced to. Nobody is using force against you to prevent setting up a testable commune in your personal life

Let's look at this statement more closely, is what you're saying consistent with the libertarian conception of choice? When socialists argue that workers are forced to sell their labour power because they have no other way to purchase the goods they need to survive, such if someone decided not to become a worker they would eventually die of starvation because they would not have any money to buy food , libertarians argue that the worker is actually entering into a voluntary transaction and does not suffer coercion, even though the alternative is death. If you refused to pay taxes you would be placed in prison by the state, but, according to the libertarian position, you are still making a choice because you have chosen to live in a country where the governments taxes its citizens, and you could potentially avoid this by moving to a country where taxes do not exist, or even to an area which is not under the jurisdiction of any government. You are contradicting your own ideas by claiming that you are "forced" to pay taxes.

[La Comédie Noire]

If communist principles are universal and logical, then they should be applicable to all human beings, at any time , in any situation and still be valid.


Now that's just a stupid statement. "Communist principals" as well as "capitalist principals" aren't things that just fall out of the sky, they are social constructs based on material conditions. Therefore they cannot be "universal" or eternal.

No type of society ever is, for instance when was the last time you heard of someone entering into a contract of serfdom?

[BobKKKindle$]

If communist principles are universal and logical, then they should be applicable to all human beings, at any time , in any situation and still be valid.No communist has ever claimed that communist principles are "universal" and Engels explicitly refuted this assertion in The Principles of Communism where he explained that communism could only exist under conditions of material abundance when the forces of production have reached a sufficient level of development:


15 - Was not the abolition of private property possible at an earlier time?

No. Every change in the social order, every revolution in property relations, is the necessary consequence of the creation of new forces of production which no longer fit into the old property relations.

[...]

It is clear that, up to now, the forces of production have never been developed to the point where enough could be developed for all, and that private property has become a fetter and a barrier in relation to the further development of the forces of production.

Now, however, the development of big industry has ushered in a new period. Capital and the forces of production have been expanded to an unprecedented extent, and the means are at hand to multiply them without limit in the near future. Moreover, the forces of production have been concentrated in the hands of a few bourgeois, while the great mass of the people are more and more falling into the proletariat, their situation becoming more wretched and intolerable in proportion to the increase of wealth of the bourgeoisie. And finally, these mighty and easily extended forces of production have so far outgrown private property and the bourgeoisie, that they threaten at any moment to unleash the most violent disturbances of the social order. Now, under these conditions, the abolition of private property has become not only possible but absolutely necessary.
The Principles of Communism, Frederick Engels, 1847 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)

[Baconator]

If you live in a Western country there still isn't much force initiated against you in your personal life by the state relative to some other places like N.Korea. You can feasibly set up a commune experiment in your own personal life and thats quite different then the threat of force when not paying taxes.

So you won't apply communism in practice in your own personal life. If you admit that that communist principles are not universal , then why speak of it in the abstract as if everyone ideally should be bound to these principles? Why formant revolution from which the result would be everyone would have to abide by communist principles?

If they aren't universal then they are rank opinion or have no truth value relative to reality.
Its like saying " I know I like ice cream is my opinion and true for me , but if social variables X, Y, and Z were altered then everyone ought to like ice cream."

[Baconator]

"The ideal is nobody should have property rights."

"Communist principles are not universal"

"I prefer in my personal life to exercise property rights."


This is the basic argument I'm receiving from you guys.

[Baconator]

Either everybody ought to have property rights or everybody ought to have a positive obligation to other people. You can't have it both ways, its a contradiction.

Communism promotes the latter.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

http://digitalnoir.com/steve/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/nasty-troll.jpg

Baconator (with his hands covering his ears): Bla, bla, bla. I say communism is X, so it must be X or you're wrong.

[Nusocialist]

Hey. I was just looking through your posts at ReligiousForum the other day. What a coincidence. I was actually amused to find I had independently reached similar conclusions to your own a year after I met you - right down to an appreciation for non-royal Lockeanism, geoism, and libertarian socialism. Before that point I had thought you were silly-nilly, but I repent. :)
That is the fate of most anarchists and decentralists. Even alot of the anarchists here think I'm "silly-nilly" though. My views have changed a bit but not too much.

[Nusocialist]

Either everybody ought to have property rights or everybody ought to have a positive obligation to other people. You can't have it both ways, its a contradiction.

Communism promotes the latter.
That is silly. Even the term property rights can have a myriad of meanings. I mean there are all differen ideas about them. Rothbardian, Neo-lockean, Georgist, Mutualist, distributist, syndicalist, socialist, communist, etc etc

[freakazoid]

Revleft has some members that have quite a bit of personal assets at their disposal , be it that they have a large income , stocks and investments, and accumulated wealth in savings.

Really? I was under the impression that most have very little money.

For the most part I agree with what you are saying. But there are some problems with how it should be run, largely your understanding of property. There is a difference between personal property, things that are for your own personal use like clothing, toothbrushes, etc. and things that are private property, such as a factory. But I do believe that something like this should be done. There is a thread somewhere where this was touched on, I will try to find it and post it later.


However, putting these objections aside, the idea of setting up a commune based on communist principles and people trying to isolate themselves from capitalist society is a flawed approach for two main reasons - firstly, communism can only exist under conditions of material abundance and these conditions cannot be achieved in the absence of revolution on a global scale, simply because all the resources which are needed to produce the goods everyone wants cannot be located in any individual country or region,

Oh noes, not everyone will get what they want, the revolution is failed. :rolleyes: I do not believe that "material conditions" is that important to have an anarchist society, in case you couldn't tell from my overtly sarcastic response, :P What does "material conditions" have to do with living in a stateless society? And if the conditions are not here then why even try if it is just doomed to fail?


and secondly, as long as people continue to inhabit a capitalist society, ideology based on capitalist concepts such as private property and the use of other people for personal gain will continue to influence the way we interact with others, such that any commune founded on idealism will eventually fail and give way to the kind of exploitative personal relationships we see in "mainstream" capitalist society.

This would be true if the commune was made up of capitalists. But why would that be even allowed? It would be communists/anarchist making it up.


The problem with creating a commune to test our ideas is that it would have to be an extremely BIG commune. Communism - at least the kind of communism that Marxists envision - requires an entire industrial economy. We're not talking about a few hundred people on a communal farm. Communism cannot work in a purely agrarian society. We're talking about a whole modern country (at least), complete with factories, power plants and so forth.

It's not the size that matters... it's how you work it, :laugh:. All you have to due is live in a classless, stateless society, you don't need an "entire industrial economy" for that. Yes it can work with only a few hundred people, or even a dozen people, or one person.


So again, if it is a question of scale,

It's not about scale, it is about the use of the object.


This is exactly the same as a creationist arguing that micro-evolution is OK but macro-evolution is bunk.

It is not bunk, there is a clear difference between the two :P


Back on topic. We don't have anyone willing to live their values here then?

I'd be willing to do this, but right now it just wouldn't be feasible for me to due it. And of course it is with all the wrong parts fixed.


You presumably don't pay any taxes then, and also refuse to use any service provided by the government, including roads and...the internet?

There are those who do just that, even the taxes part until the fucking government comes in and sieges your place. And why can't you still use things like roads or the internet?


such if someone decided not to become a worker they would eventually die of starvation because they would not have any money to buy food

Actually that isn't necessarily true. You don't need money to procure food. You can always live off the land.


Either everybody ought to have property rights or everybody ought to have a positive obligation to other people. You can't have it both ways, its a contradiction.

It really depends on what you mean by property. Again there is a difference between personal property and private property, which has nothing to do with the size and everything to with with its use.

LOL Baconator, right now your post count is 223, :D

[La Comédie Noire]

If you live in a Western country there still isn't much force initiated against you in your personal life by the state relative to some other places like N.Korea. You can feasibly set up a commune experiment in your own personal life and thats quite different then the threat of force when not paying taxes.

Actually your "communist experiment" sounds more like forming a family unit or having roommates. It is'nt very revolutionary I'm afraid.




So you won't apply communism in practice in your own personal life. If you admit that that communist principles are not universal , then why speak of it in the abstract as if everyone ideally should be bound to these principles? Why formant revolution from which the result would be everyone would have to abide by communist principles?


Did the merchant bankers of the 1700's practice modern capitalism and liberal democracy in their personal lives? No. Did that stop them from trying to advocate for those things in society? Of course not!



If they aren't universal then they are rank opinion or have no truth value relative to reality.
Its like saying " I know I like ice cream is my opinion and true for me , but if social variables X, Y, and Z were altered then everyone ought to like ice cream."


Communism is a hypothesis based on the trend of technology, especially in production, to change the super structure of society.

Before the periodic table of elements were created many scientists noticed patterns when elements were compared by atomic mass.

It wasn't until Dmitri Mendeleev developed a chart of elements that a useful pattern formed. In fact it was so useful he could predict the atomic structure of elements that weren't even found yet. He didn't know what they were going to be, but he knew they ought to be there.

Same goes for communism. We think the advancement of technology will make the ability to live without private property possible, it ought to. The reluctance of capitalists to build capital intensive factories and the tendency of over production to be harmful to capitalist relations seems to point to this. But we could be wrong.

And if we’re wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.


Either everybody ought to have property rights or everybody ought to have a positive obligation to other people. You can't have it both ways, it’s a contradiction.


Communism promotes the latter.

That just falls apart! Do you mean Feudal property rights? Family/ clan property rights? Slave holdings?! And what’s a “positive obligation”?

I know people can be obligated under different forms of society to enter into certain social relations. For instance, under feudalism I'm obligated to enter into a contract of serdom with a lord for physical protection and sustenance.

While under capitalism I'm obligated to work a job so I am able to purchase the things I need.

There isn't anything altruistic or voluntary about it! It's just the way life was/is. Same goes for communism. We don't seriously believe people will just one day get up and abolish private property out of the goodness of their hearts.

Private property, we hypothesize, will just stop making sense as things become easier without it. People in a communist society will be obligated to share their labor with society instead of contracting it to a capitalist or lord.

[Plagueround]

Oh noes, not everyone will get what they want, the revolution is failed. :rolleyes: I do not believe that "material conditions" is that important to have an anarchist society, in case you couldn't tell from my overtly sarcastic response, :P What does "material conditions" have to do with living in a stateless society? And if the conditions are not here then why even try if it is just doomed to fail?

Because if you don't have the things people need or want to survive you will be forced to live as a "leech" off the capitalist system or you will need to live primitively until the means of production can be procured...and guess what that will entail? Since materials for making said means of production are not readily available in any one area, let alone in a small rogue community...it will mean finding a way to purchase them from capitalists.


This would be true if the commune was made up of capitalists. But why would that be even allowed? It would be communists/anarchist making it up.Because the strains placed on a community because of capitalism would still be present, unless you choose to live primitively.




It's not the size that matters... it's how you work it, :laugh:. All you have to due is live in a classless, stateless society, you don't need an "entire industrial economy" for that. Yes it can work with only a few hundred people, or even a dozen people, or one person.There are quite a few small communes that do live like this, you just need to know where to look and quite frankly, there is not much stopping you from joining them. From the people I've interacted with that live in these communities, they have very little interest in class struggle and aren't really solving any problems...instead they're "divorcing" themselves from society and are essentially sticking their heads in the sand. These people also claim to be regularly attacked and sometimes killed by the U.S. government.


There are those who do just that, even the taxes part until the fucking government comes in and sieges your place.Clearly not a very intelligent move if one doesn't wish to be disturbed by government forces.


And why can't you still use things like roads or the internet?

Because roads, as well as the backbone of the internet, are maintained by tax dollars.


Actually that isn't necessarily true. You don't need money to procure food. You can always live off the land.This would mean either foraging, stealing, or owning land. Not exactly sustainable or in line with the advocation of class struggle or liberation.

[freakazoid]

Because if you don't have the things people need or want to survive you will be forced to live as a "leech" off the capitalist system or you will need to live primitively until the means of production can be procured...and guess what that will entail?

It doesn't matter what people want for it to work, it is what people need. And it would be very easy to set up a system to supply the needs of the people, and they can still live a comfortable lifestyle, you won't have to live "primitively". Nor as a leech off the capitalist system, seeing as how you would be living outside of the system there would be no capitalism to leech off of.


Since materials for making said means of production are not readily available in any one area, let alone in a small rogue community...it will mean finding a way to purchase them from capitalists.

Like I said, the materials are the to supply what you need, things like water, food, power, etc. You will be able to live a comfortable lifestyle. And if there is something that you really need, what is the problem with purchasing them from the capitalists? And if you wanted to take the route, what is stopping you from making a raid to procure what you need?


Because the strains placed on a community because of capitalism would still be present, unless you choose to live primitively.

More detail? Proof?


From the people I've interacted with that live in these communities, they have very little interest in class struggle and aren't really solving any problems...instead they're "divorcing" themselves from society and are essentially sticking their heads in the sand.

And that should be dealt with. The goal wouldn't be to just live outside of the capitalist system, to bury your head in the sand. But it is to show the people that there is another workable solution, and the community must still engage in activities in other communities. Building communes that do these are a form of direct action against the system which can be used to bring it down.
When the revolution does come, will the workers not set up communes outside of the current system?


Clearly not a very intelligent move if one doesn't wish to be disturbed by government forces.

Well I guess in that case we better not do anything, create unions, hold protests, etc., for the government will always fight back.


Because roads, as well as the backbone of the internet, are maintained by tax dollars.

So?


This would mean either foraging, stealing, or owning land. Not exactly sustainable or in line with the advocation of class struggle or liberation.

How so?

[Ratatosk]

Most rooms would likely be door less or at least have no locks. By locking or sealing a space you are implicitly exercising exclusivity.This is rubbish.

Those that have the ability to provide the food will provide it so everyone has equal access. Whatever is to be consumed by each must be voted upon. Rules would have to be set in place to make sure nobody is sneaking in extra food without informing and sharing with the entire communal living quarters.This is ridiculously impractical.

Socialized bathrooms:

No doors and/or locks. Private spaced showers could be problematic. An open shower space with no barriers and soap , shampoo, tampons , etc are to be provided by those who have the ability to do so.And this is just plain ridiculous.

Sorry, I wouldn't wanna live in this commune. In fact, I doubt any normal person (without a fanatical will to prove that such a commune is workable) would. Which would make it kinda irrelevant as an empirical test, anyway.

[Baconator]

Really? I was under the impression that most have very little money.

Hardly. I'm sure revleft turns quite a profit from the Che store as well.


For the most part I agree with what you are saying. But there are some problems with how it should be run, largely your understanding of property. There is a difference between personal property, things that are for your own personal use like clothing, toothbrushes, etc. and things that are private property, such as a factory. But I do believe that something like this should be done. There is a thread somewhere where this was touched on, I will try to find it and post it later.

No it is this artificial division of property rights that is the misunderstanding and fundamentally contradictory. The property you use was the result of some line of production in which someone owned a lot of toothbrushes and exchanged the value of them with other people such as yourself since , I presume, you own a toothbrush. Did something in the properties of the toothbrush change when it was transfered to you through trade? How could it be traded if before you were able to get the toothbrush no one can claim property rights over it since it came out of a production line?
The alternative would be that we must all produce our own toothbrushes which is absurd.

The suggestion offered in this thread is a simple and humble one. If in abstraction you can claim the ideal as everyone ought to live by communist principles then you ought to attempt to live them in your personal life, at least if you want a bit of empiricism and integrity in your 'prescriptions' for society.



It's not about scale, it is about the use of the object.

Sure it is because if we are discussing production of tomatoes then how can it not apply? The communist says I could exercise property rights over a small private tomato patch I own but when it is scaled up into more patches covering a larger area my property rights are invalid and actually the exact opposite.
Or the communist is saying I may not produce more than I would consume ( how is this objectified??) and therefore, I may not trade the value of tomatoes I do not consume. Which of course means nobody else can and trade becomes impossible. Surely the communist would be against my hiring of a gardener as well since the value of tomatoes not consumed by me cannot be traded.:laugh:
Don't even get me started if I wish to produce more tomatoes for the purpose of making ketchup. Then I'm using the tomatoes and the patch as yet another 'means of production.'


It really depends on what you mean by property. Again there is a difference between personal property and private property, which has nothing to do with the size and everything to with with its use.

If you are not free to allocate the value of your property how you see fit then do you really have property rights?

[Baconator]

To freakazoid,

The way we escape primitivism is through something called 'division of labor.' Let us say that you and I lived in the same community. If only a relatively small portion of our population focused their productive efforts on production of tomatoes then we all benefit. How is this the case? Well, if an owner of vast tomato patches, at least enough to grow for the entire community, focused his labor and capital in tomato production then that means the rest of us can have the rational choice of not doing it on our own. The tomato producers' self interest is intertwined with the success of trading surplus with the rest of society. We can simply trade the surplus of our labor with the surplus of his(theirs).It gives us the opportunity to focus our own energies on producing things that our faculty of mind and skill best incline us for. Surely the tomato producers are not happy with just having a surplus of tomatoes. They desire to trade that supply with other things other people produce in the community. It is through this division of labor that members of society mutually benefit. The neomystics of communism would hold that the division of labor is unethical and immoral when it is precisely that same division of labor that delivers us from primitivism and into civilization. The success of the division of labor, of course , hinges on the valid and rational application of property rights.

[freakazoid]

In a communist society there would be no need to personally own a large patch of tomatoes, which would then require workers. There is a thread somewhere here in the OI that is by a farmer who was asking questions along these lines. Will try to look it up for you.

edit - Found it, http://www.revleft.com/vb/questions-american-farmer-t82885/index.html?t=82885&

[Plagueround]

It doesn't matter what people want for it to work, it is what people need. And it would be very easy to set up a system to supply the needs of the people, and they can still live a comfortable lifestyle, you won't have to live "primitively". Nor as a leech off the capitalist system, seeing as how you would be living outside of the system there would be no capitalism to leech off of.

How do you suggest gathering materials to form a functional society unless you're going to live like it's 200-300 years ago? Resources don't appear out of thin air, and living in such a primitive manner is not going to convince the majority of people enjoying modern comfort your system works better. If the goal is to convince people of that, that will also require interaction with capitalist society. If creating a better world for everyone and not just your little group is the goal, your tiny hippie commune is ineffective.



Like I said, the materials are the to supply what you need, things like water, food, power, etc. You will be able to live a comfortable lifestyle. And if there is something that you really need, what is the problem with purchasing them from the capitalists? And if you wanted to take the route, what is stopping you from making a raid to procure what you need?

Again. If you are not abolishing capitalism and buying or stealing from it to create your commune, you are not doing anything to address how those materials were acquired before you got them. But who gives a fuck about the exploited in other countries amirite? :rolleyes:




More detail? Proof?

Everything I've written thus far is proof. You still need to interact with capitalist society and find a way to get money.


And that should be dealt with. The goal wouldn't be to just live outside of the capitalist system, to bury your head in the sand. But it is to show the people that there is another workable solution, and the community must still engage in activities in other communities. Building communes that do these are a form of direct action against the system which can be used to bring it down.
When the revolution does come, will the workers not set up communes outside of the current system?

Setting up communes like those of Catalonia would likely be effective, but recall they had industry and resources (Sadly, they also got the shit kicked out of them by fascist, but that's not relevant or their fault). This is quite different from living in the scenario Baconator has described. You don't seem to fully understand how much of an undertaking a commune would actually be, and I tire of saying this, unless it is to be backwards and primitive.


Well I guess in that case we better not do anything, create unions, hold protests, etc., for the government will always fight back.

If you had been paying attention this was an example of how Baconator doesn't live by the principals he believes in but declares others hypocrites for not doing so. Besides, direct action has obviously proven to be more effective than putting a big giant "hey I didn't pay my taxes!" flag over your head so don't pretend there isn't a difference.


So?

So if we were to live by Baconator's standards, it would also require him to live by his and not use anything that was made with the benefit of taxation since he is admantly against them. See how silly and impractical isolating oneself from current system while trying to change it would be?




How so?

Foraging and stealing would work for a a very limited number of people. Farming would be acceptable of course, but then, you face the afformentioned problems of still requiring a number of materials from capitalism. Of everything you mentioned though, farming would probably be the most doable of these projects once you got started.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Baconator can't even tell us which of the many capitalist property systems he supports, and how it runs as a non-subjective system, invalidating this thread. Hopefully when he grows up he'll start to think for himself.

[Baconator]

In a communist society there would be no need to personally own a large patch of tomatoes, which would then require workers. There is a thread somewhere here in the OI that is by a farmer who was asking questions along these lines. Will try to look it up for you.

edit - Found it, http://www.revleft.com/vb/questions-american-farmer-t82885/index.html?t=82885&


Right.The division of labor would be destroyed and we get a quick ticket back to primitivism. Precisely what the communist neomystics hope for.

[Plagueround]

Right.The division of labor would be destroyed and we get a quick ticket back to primitivism. Precisely what the communist neomystics hope for.

Marx did say the division of labor would be transcended. This does not mean it would disappear completely, it means it would be transformed or reinterpreted into something more beneficial to all, not driven by profit motive for a few. Transcending does not mean reverting to something primitive.

I edited this post because I feel I've been rather harsh lately...my apologies for the name calling in the previous version.

[freakazoid]

How do you suggest gathering materials to form a functional society unless you're going to live like it's 200-300 years ago? Resources don't appear out of thin air,There are numerous ways. Again you do not have to live like how it was 200-300 years ago. You can still have electricity and infrastructure and stuff. It depends on how it is formed to begin with that would decide on what is needed. Is it done in the way as I had suggested in another thread where it is done sort of like the idea of the Free State Project where you decide to have everyone move to an area so you would have a much larger voice to be able to influence the local politics, Montana would be a great state to look into for reasons discussed in the other thread. Will try to find the thread later because it talks about this. If done in that was then everything that is needed will already be there, so no need to gather materials. If it is done where you acquire a large plot of land in a more commune like way then people will be able to bring there own supplies and can help towards getting what is needed, plus stealing is always an option for some of the more expensive things.


nd living in such a primitive manner is not going to convince the majority of people enjoying modern comfort your system works better.Oh noes, people won't get there Starbucks and super expensive designer cloths, the revolution is failed. ;/ Now when I say this I don't mean it in an insulting way but it is just my way to show how I think it is wrong. I'm not very good at expressing my thoughts and this is the best way that I can think of, :(


If the goal is to convince people of that, that will also require interaction with capitalist society.Is that bad?


If creating a better world for everyone and not just your little group is the goal, your tiny hippie commune is ineffective.It wouldn't be some hippy commune where there is no goal to help stop capitalism. Hmmm... perhaps I should make a separate thread with my own thoughts on how I think it should be done so as to keep it separate from Baconators idea.


Again. If you are not abolishing capitalism and buying or stealing from it to create your commune, you are not doing anything to address how those materials were acquired before you got them.By creating a commune you ARE abolishing it from the area. And like I said before it should also work towards abolishing it everywhere. And what is wrong with buying and stealing it to aquire what you need?


You still need to interact with capitalist society and find a way to get money.So what if you still have to "interact" with capitalist society. There are many ways to acquire money...


This is quite different from living in the scenario Baconator has described.My idea is different from Baconators idea, which is why I'm thinking about creating a separate thread for it.


So if we were to live by Baconator's standards, it would also require him to live by his and not use anything that was made with the benefit of taxation since he is admantly against them. See how silly and impractical isolating oneself from current system while trying to change it would be?If something is already made might as well use it to your benefit.


Foraging and stealing would work for a a very limited number of people.I think it can work for a large number of people if absolutely needed.


Farming would be acceptable of course, but then, you face the afformentioned problems of still requiring a number of materials from capitalism.Not really a whole lot. You can use what is already there, if done with the moving to a state idea, if if more hippy commune like then people can bring what is needed. But I'm not much for the hippy commune style, maybe inside of the larger state moving idea but not by itself.


Of everything you mentioned though, farming would probably be the most doable of these projects once you got started.People need food and farming provides it so... yeah.

[Plagueround]

I suggest you create that other thread, because my argument is primarily directed at Baconator's example.

Here's the Montana thread by the way:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/exodus-real-revolution-t87414/index.html?t=87414