So whats stopping you communist

[CaptainCapitalist68]

from buying your own land, making your own city, makign your own factories and being self sustainable?

Can't you produce your own wealth from nothing or do you need to take the wealth of the rich first?

You might say "well we wouldn't have any access to oil or metal" to which I would say 'well why can't you produce something to sell so that you can buy your oil or metal and be self sufficient?'

It doesn't even have to be a city, it can just be a company. A company where janitors and executives get paid the same or where people get paid based on their needs or whatever.

And if this idea would be good wouldn't it spread to other people and wouldn't other people adopt thsi pratice?

Wouldn't this be better then forcing your idea on people by force? WOuldn't it be better to get people to practice communism voluntary then forcing people too?

"Lets do communism who is with me!" Vs "OK we are communist now, everyone will now be force to work for each other from now on!"

[Dr Mindbender]

its the institution we have a problem with, not a percieved lack of 'our individual right' to purchase class status.

We have a fundamental problem with people living in disprivilege and poverty in a world of abundance, and captalism must strive to defend this status quo as it's vested interests lie in the class system.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

its the institution we have a problem with, not a percieved lack of 'our individual right' to purchase class status.

We have a fundamental problem with people living in disprivilege and poverty in a world of abundance, and captalism must strive to defend this status quo as it's vested interests lie in the class system.

Thats not what I asked. I mean whats stopping you form purchasing your own land, making a deal with a government and practicing communism on your own and whatever people are with you?

[Dr Mindbender]

Thats not what I asked. I mean whats stopping you form purchasing your own land, making a deal with a government and practicing communism on your own and whatever people are with you?

Because history has proven that communism and capitalism cannot co-exist.

Socialism will always revert back to state capitalism under the capitalist thumb because of conflicting economic interests. In order for communism to be victorious it must be global.

[Trystan]

Well, it's difficult when the bourgeois government will keep the rich rich by bailing them out and quashing competition. Plus I don't want to be a capitalist, exploiting people and so on . . . read Marx already.

[Dr Mindbender]

Well, it's difficult when the bourgeois government will keep the rich rich by bailing them out and quashing competition. Plus I don't want to be a capitalist, exploiting people and so on . . . read Marx already.

i dont think becoming capitalist is what capcap means. I think he's talking about using capitalist means to achieve a communist society.

It cant work though. You can't 'buy' a revolution. An uprising without popular will is nothing more than a coup de' etat.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Because history has proven that communism and capitalism cannot co-exist.

Socialism will always revert back to state capitalism under the capitalist thumb because of conflicting economic interests. In order for communism to be victorious it must be global.

LOL so if everyone in the world was communistt except for like one person or even on city it wouldn't work? Thats bull crap.

I still don't see why a collection of people who choose to work for each other instead of working for profit can't produce enough of their own wealth to be self sustainable.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Well, it's difficult when the bourgeois government will keep the rich rich by bailing them out and quashing competition. Plus I don't want to be a capitalist, exploiting people and so on . . . read Marx already.

You don't have to exploit people. You can pay them a decent wage and sell your products at a good price.

So your saying you wouldn't be able to compete with a bourgeois company?

Would the communist need to steal the factories, schools and buildings of the rich or would they be able to make their own?

[Dr Mindbender]

LOL so if everyone in the world was capitlist except for like one person or even on city it wouldn't work? Thats bull crap.
thats not what i meant. It depends on the dominant ideology of the day, capitalism was far stronger than communism in 1917 not only because it had a head start of a couple of centuries but the brutal way in which it supressed revolution.

The material circumstances will favour the stronger ideology of the day at the expense of the one playing catch up.


I still don't see why a collection of people who choose to work for each other instead of working for profit can't produce enough of their own wealth to be self sustainable.
Because if other people see it working well they will want to copy it which will threaten the interests of capitalism.

[Trystan]

i dont think becoming capitalist is what capcap means. I think he's talking about using capitalist means to achieve a communist society.

It cant work though. You can't 'buy' a revolution. An uprising without popular will is nothing more than a coup de' etat.

Oh, right. Note to self: read posts in full in future. :confused: And yeah, I agree.

There is actually a lot of unused property out there. In a city which might have thousands of homeless people it goes unused. Talk about "anti-social behavior". I wonder if Captain Cappie would see a problem with people using it it.

[Dr Mindbender]

Oh, right. Note to self: read posts in full in future. :confused: And yeah, I agree.

There is actually a lot of unused property out there. In a city which might have thousands of homeless people it goes unused. Talk about "anti-social behavior". I wonder if Captain Cappie would see a problem with people using it it.

they dont give unused property to the homeless for the same reason they throw away fresh, uneaten food instead of giving it to the hungry.

The dictatorship of the market.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

A "Free State" project for communists?

There is no such thing as a self-sufficient economy anymore. You'd have to trade with the outside world. I'd actually be interested to see if this is possible - not necessarily communism, but some form of bottom-up planning with a very 21st century (maybe even futurist) spin. However, that would require a lot of money to go into purchasing the land and building the facilities, and you'd have to make sure local authorities don't interfere - namely, either paying taxes, or getting some exemption. Perhaps if you got 10,000 Leftists together, and asked them to contribute $5,000 - you could start something with $50,000,000. But at that rate a decent home for every family would run you well into nine digits.

[Incendiarism]

Does frretown christiania count, capcap?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

A "Free State" project for communists?

There is no such thing as a self-sufficient economy anymore. You'd have to trade with the outside world. I'd actually be interested to see if this is possible - not necessarily communism, but some form of bottom-up planning with a very 21st century (maybe even futurist) spin. However, that would require a lot of money to go into purchasing the land and building the facilities, and you'd have to make sure local authorities don't interfere - namely, either paying taxes, or getting some exemption. Perhaps if you got 10,000 Leftists together, and asked them to contribute $5,000 - you could start something with $50,000,000. But at that rate a decent home for every family would run you well into nine digits.




It wouldn't have to cost nine digits if all this people bought, lets say all the materials to build a home for everyone on a whole sale price and if some people out the 10,000 knew how to build homes already and used their ability to help build everyone a home. Of course everyone would help to build this homes.

5,000 bucks is hardly that much money.

I just think it be better if the communist made their own wealth instead of taking it away from other people. You might say, "well the wealth the rich people have took it away from poor people". This statement just proves that people in general are able to generate wealth on their own without resorting to confiscation.

But the reason this won't work is because no person that makes good money, such as doctors, engineers, foremen, computer techs and professors won't even think about joining this community.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Does frretown christiania count, capcap?

If they practice communism then sure.

Personally I don't think i'd be able to stand living in an metal island with 40 other people for more then a month. I'd be very interested to try though.

[pusher robot]

they dont give unused property to the homeless for the same reason they throw away fresh, uneaten food instead of giving it to the hungry.

The dictatorship of the market.

Actually it has more to do with civil liability, but whatever.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

they dont give unused property to the homeless for the same reason they throw away fresh, uneaten food instead of giving it to the hungry.

The dictatorship of the market.

If its not their property they don't have any rights to it. The property might not be used now but what about in 20 years? It can become a prime time location or might be used for some much needed living space.

But if someone were to be living on it now that person can say "Well, they let me stay here for free and I am already used to being here so this property should now be mine".

No one likes to eat throw away food. I've also noticed many chubby homeless people too.

[RGacky3]

You don't get it do you, we opppose Capitalism, not because we believe communism would work better (which it would), we oppose it for the same reason we oppose slavery, we are against oppression and tyrrany. Capitalism is an oppressive tyrannical system.

This is'nt about setting up a better system, its about liberation.

Even if somehow we could, all us communists, get enough money to set up our own 'commune' we would'nt, because thats not our purpose, our purpose is to dismantle oppression and exploitation where ever we find it. That includes opposing Capitalism, and the State, and offering real alternatives, such as social-anarchism.

Thats like telling an abolitionist during Slavery in America, "If you don't like Slavery, just live in a place that does'nt have slavery." Of caorse you can't tell that to a slave (or a modern wage slave), because they don't have that ability.

[danyboy27]

captain capitalist have a point here, and really i dont support that guy but now he got a serious point.

Look at the quakers, they been able to have their own land and society without having to fuck around too much with the exterior world except for some basics things.

At a certain point it would be possible by barting ressources to make a communist colony self sufficent, russia did that when they had some food problems and it worked, and cappies wont give a shit, if they can have some of your lets say wheat for a better price, if for them buying 1 citern of oil in exchange of 1 shipment of wheat is a deal for them, well they will do the deal.
Cappies dont give a shit where its produced, if its better, or cheaper, or rare or even aboundant, they will buy it!

[Dust Bunnies]

5,000 bucks is hardly that much money.



I'm sorry if we don't get a $500 allowance from daddy a day. It is quite a sum, and if you offered it in front of homeless people they would kill each other to get those $5,000.

[Plagueround]

captain capitalist have a point here, and really i dont support that guy but now he got a serious point.

Look at the quakers, they been able to have their own land and society without having to fuck around too much with the exterior world except for some basics things.

At a certain point it would be possible by barting ressources to make a communist colony self sufficent, russia did that when they had some food problems and it worked, and cappies wont give a shit, if they can have some of your lets say wheat for a better price, if for them buying 1 citern of oil in exchange of 1 shipment of wheat is a deal for them, well they will do the deal.
Cappies dont give a shit where its produced, if its better, or cheaper, or rare or even aboundant, they will buy it!

We don't want to seperate ourselves from capitalism and let the rest of the world to have to deal with it. That's something a big time capitalist would do. He has no point and neither does anyone else who has tried suggesting this in the past.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

I'm sorry if we don't get a $500 allowance from daddy a day. It is quite a sum, and if you offered it in front of homeless people they would kill each other to get those $5,000.

That is why you need to have a fuking gun and shot anyone who is tryign to mug you. Then after the homeless guy who was tryign to mug you falls on the groudn with his brains exposed you look at the other homesless guys start in the eye who were also thinkign of mugging you.

5,000 may be be large sum of money but its not a sum so big that it would be impossible to uptain. With good planning and wise spending any person can save up this much.

No my family don't give me shit. They offer to give but I perfer to work for my own stuff.

[Plagueround]

That is why you need to have a fuking gun and shot anyone who is tryign to mug you. Then after the homeless guy who was tryign to mug you falls on the groudn with his brains exposed you look at the other homesless guys start in the eye who were also thinkign of mugging you.

5,000 may be be large sum of money but its not a sum so big that it would be impossible to uptain. With good planning and wise spending any person can save up this much.

No my family don't give me shit. They offer to give but I perfer to work for my own stuff.

I can't imagine what it must be like to live such a joyless life.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

We don't want to seperate ourselves from capitalism and let the rest of the world to have to deal with it. That's something a big time capitalist would do. He has no point and neither does anyone else who has tried suggesting this in the past.

So you much rather force commmunism on the world then having them voluntary join your ideology huh?

You just made my point.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

I can't imagine what it must be like to live such a joyless life.

Thats where you are wrong. You see, if you haven't notice its the capitalist who gets the most out of life. His purpose in life is to fullfill his own happiness.

unlike you, you believe the purpose of men is to sacrific themselves and their ability to the lesser men who is in need. You would sacrific people's happiness for their suffering.

Your not even a real man. When a real man wants somethign he will uptain that somethign on his own without resorting to takign that something away from someone else.

[Plagueround]

So you much rather force commmunism on the world then having them voluntary join your ideology huh?

You just made my point.

No, we want the world to join in on what we are doing. That is why we work on community building and the spread of information. There is no force involved, other than the force that would be used against those who wish to continue enslaving us. I for one don't intend on bringing the fight to someone's home or factory, I intend on defending from those who would create a fight and attempt to quell the inevitable path that the people themselves would choose.
I did not prove your point because during your entire time on this forum you have yet to come up with a rational, well thought out argument that does anything but reinforce the negative stereotypes and antisocial behavior you have no intention of getting rid of, despite their being concrete evidence that many of the positions you hold (especially about genetics) to be completely misunderstood and blatantly false.

These are things that you refuse to believe even though they've been proven by people that have absolutely nothing to do with communism. If everyone shared your pessimistic and selfish appraisal of the world we would be likely dead by now, or at least you would be.

[Bilan]

You are very silly.

[Plagueround]

Thats where you are wrong. You see, if you haven't notice its the capitalist who gets the most out of life. His purpose in life is to fullfill his own happiness.

And yet when the world thinks of people who lived fully and inspired people, I don't see billionaires mentioned that often. A person who lives solely for their own happiness usually end up without it.


unlike you, you believe the purpose of men is to sacrific themselves and their ability to the lesser men who is in need. You would sacrific people's happiness for their suffering.There are no lesser men (or women, since you seem intent on framing everything in such a patriarchal way) other than those that destroy the freedoms of others by limiting their access to what should be available to all.


Your not even a real man.Clearly, by having a perspective that encourages community and compassion, I've emasculated myself. I'm happy to see your arguments have gotten so poor that you feel the need to turn this into an alpha male posturing contest.


When a real man wants somethign he will uptain that somethign on his own without resorting to takign that something away from someone else.Interesting. A real man would get something on their own, yet it's clearly been demonstrated how much a capitalist takes from others unfairly, either ignorantly or willingly. Doesn't really mesh with your theories about people in Africa "causing themselves" to be exploited. As if our current capitalist society isn't the result of years of taking from others by force.

[RGacky3]

Notice how Capital Capialist completely ignored Plagueround and I. The question is flawed, your missing the whole point, now you have 2 options, learn from what we said so you can understand the leftist viewpoint more (hopefully what your here for) and realize that you were wrong, or grab on to your balls, do nothing, and continue in stubborn ignorance.

[Die Neue Zeit]

from buying your own land, making your own city, makign your own factories and being self sustainable?

Can't you produce your own wealth from nothing or do you need to take the wealth of the rich first?

[...]

Wouldn't this be better then forcing your idea on people by force? Wouldn't it be better to get people to practice communism voluntary then forcing people too?

"Lets do communism who is with me!" Vs "OK we are communist now, everyone will now be force to work for each other from now on!"

1) Class struggle (but then again, you're a class-collaborationist scum);
2) The history of bourgeois capitalism started with primitive accumulation, which was rife with the very FORCE that you so decry us of proposing; and
3) Why are the functioning capitalists not allowing more democratic control over the pension funds owning a substantial portion of corporate equity?

[JimmyJazz]

CaptainCapitalist, what's keeping you from starting your own capitalist message board instead of crashing ours.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You are obviously oblivious to the history of the communist movement or even basic concepts like historical materialism. If you're really interested in an answer to your question, please look into Robert Owen, Saint-Simon, and works such as Engel's "Socialism: Utopia and Scientific" and the section entitled Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm#c) from The Communist Manifesto.

Of course, you're not interested in an answer at all, or you would have already done what is suggested above. Instead you come here and troll your pro-imperialist crap to get a rise out of people. Don't you have anything better to do?

[redSHARP]

captain capitalist have a point here, and really i dont support that guy but now he got a serious point.

Look at the quakers, they been able to have their own land and society without having to fuck around too much with the exterior world except for some basics things.



and they got shit for it!

[pusher robot]

No, we want the world to join in on what we are doing.

Except, per capcap's original point, you're quite apparently not doing what it is you say you want everyone to do - actually living according to your stated principles. You can offer any reasons that you like - that it's impractical, that it's inconvenient, that it's futile, that it's not fair - but you can't really argue around that point.

[Plagueround]

Except, per capcap's original point, you're quite apparently not doing what it is you say you want everyone to do - actually living according to your stated principles. You can offer any reasons that you like - that it's impractical, that it's inconvenient, that it's futile, that it's not fair - but you can't really argue around that point.

Ignoring the fact that in my time on this forum you've proven to be a slightly more coherent version of CaptainCapitalist68...

...We simply do not have the means to accomplish this theoretical commune that keeps getting throwing around and it completely fails...not inconveniences us...completely FAILS to address what we are trying to accomplish. We are living by our principles, which is generating consciousness and building communities (I'm sure you'll readily dismiss any community progress that anarchist and communist organizations have made, and you'll ask me for tons of empirical evidence online...as if it doesn't exist if you can't find it online), and showing people what we mean to accomplish. If we mean to accomplish communal and fair living standards for the entire world, how could you possibly see raising money for a "revleft hippie farm" as even close and not a betrayal of what we stand for?
I would hope being on this site as long as you have you could have seen the difference...otherwise you're just a rather long standing troll.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I wonder why pusher robot has conveniently ignored the concept of class struggle. :rolleyes:


They hold fast by the original views of their masters, in opposition to the progressive historical development of the proletariat. They, therefore, endeavour, and that consistently, to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms. They still dream of experimental realisation of their social Utopias, of founding isolated “phalansteres”, of establishing “Home Colonies”, or setting up a “Little Icaria” — duodecimo editions of the New Jerusalem — and to realise all these castles in the air, they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeois. By degrees, they sink into the category of the reactionary [or] conservative Socialists depicted above, differing from these only by more systematic pedantry, and by their fanatical and superstitious belief in the miraculous effects of their social science.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

No, we want the world to join in on what we are doing. That is why we work on community building and the spread of information. There is no force involved, other than the force that would be used against those who wish to continue enslaving us. I for one don't intend on bringing the fight to someone's home or factory, I intend on defending from those who would create a fight and attempt to quell the inevitable path that the people themselves would choose.
I did not prove your point because during your entire time on this forum you have yet to come up with a rational, well thought out argument that does anything but reinforce the negative stereotypes and antisocial behavior you have no intention of getting rid of, despite their being concrete evidence that many of the positions you hold (especially about genetics) to be completely misunderstood and blatantly false.

Are you so blind to not see which system operates under consensual agreement between men and which system forces people to do stuff for each other? PEOPLE WILL BE FORCE TO HELP EACH OTHER UNDER COMMUNISM. I've already verified that.

Its already been said that the communist would take the rich people's factories, schools and hospitals, lands by force and that everyone would be force to work for each other under the same wage or for no wage at all.

All I asked, why can't the communist build their own schools, factories, roads and aqquire their own lands and other stuff needed to run a society? Did the Earth run out of Oil and Metal already?



These are things that you refuse to believe even though they've been proven by people that have absolutely nothing to do with communism. If everyone shared your pessimistic and selfish appraisal of the world we would be likely dead by now, or at least you would be.

All communism does is leave a path of death and destruction on its wake. History has told us this many times over.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

You don't get it do you, we opppose Capitalism, not because we believe communism would work better (which it would), we oppose it for the same reason we oppose slavery, we are against oppression and tyrrany. Capitalism is an oppressive tyrannical system.

This is'nt about setting up a better system, its about liberation.

Even if somehow we could, all us communists, get enough money to set up our own 'commune' we would'nt, because thats not our purpose, our purpose is to dismantle oppression and exploitation where ever we find it. That includes opposing Capitalism, and the State, and offering real alternatives, such as social-anarchism.

Thats like telling an abolitionist during Slavery in America, "If you don't like Slavery, just live in a place that does'nt have slavery." Of caorse you can't tell that to a slave (or a modern wage slave), because they don't have that ability.

You're just full of excuses.

A slave is a person who is forced to work and not a person who choose to work under consensual agreement. If this person has no knowledge about other options he might have that doesn't mean this other options don't exist.

Liberation involves men being free from each other. Your system forces men to work for each other. A person of ability and skill that works under your system would be force to help those in need. That is not liberation. You seem to think that liberation somehow means that you get free food and free housing if you need it.

Lets suppose a group of communist do manage to save up enough money and acquire some land to practice their ideology successfully. Now whats to stop people from liberating themselves on their own? Whats to stop them from moving to your "paradise"? Do people live in chains or something? Wouldn't you eventually have a ship that goes to oppressive capitlist countries to pick up people and liberate them? And if your system were to be successful whats to stop it from expanding on its own without forcing your system on the world? Wouldn't the wealth made under this system be used to purchase new land to expand into?



You're are dead wrong on the last part. A modern day "slave" does have the ability to move to another place. 700,000 people from Mexico move from Mexico to South America with nothign but the shirts on their back and their whole family. SO why wouldn't a modern day slave be able to do this? WHat excuse is there?


PS I get many replies being that most here are communist while I am the opposite. I tend to respond to those that I disagree the most with. But I'll be glad to respond to anyone and I appreciate all replys,(except for those where people just call me names and don't even say why)

[Plagueround]

Are you so blind to not see which system operates under consensual agreement between men and which system forces people to do stuff for each other? PEOPLE WILL BE FORCE TO HELP EACH OTHER UNDER COMMUNISM. I've already verified that.

Oh you did? Can I see your sources that decimates the hundreds, if not thousands, of writings on the subject. PROTIP: Atlas Shrugged doesn't count.


Its already been said that the communist would take the rich people's factories, schools and hospitals, lands by force and that everyone would be force to work for each other under the same wage or for no wage at all.Wow. You really haven't been paying attention. I really don't know what to say to someone who has been giving so much information by so many people in so many threads so many times, yet still falls back to these fallacies.


All I asked, why can't the communist build their own schools, factories, roads and aqquire their own lands and other stuff needed to run a society? Did the Earth run out of Oil and Metal already?This has also been answered. The best part is you've claimed to read the communist manifesto many times yet you completely missed that section. Jacob Richter even posted a section of it in this very thread.
Also, if we concentrate on building our own tiny society and declare we're separate from whatever country we build it on, how do you think they'll react? You think the US would stand for a bunch of people who declare themselves communists building a society in their backyard? Please, don't insult me by being so fucking condescending and naive.




All communism does is leave a path of death and destruction on its wake. History has told us this many times over.

But if we apply that same logic to capitalism, we'll get the excuses of how that's not capitalism's fault, or it wasn't true capitalism...yet if Lenin sneezed and gave someone a cold, that invalidates anything we're trying to do now.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

CaptainCapitalist, what's keeping you from starting your own capitalist message board instead of crashing ours.

Funny you mention something about making a website. I am actually working on my AA as a Media website designer. I wanna be one of those guys who make s awebsite and sells it for a few million or a few thousand.

Ahh yes the life of a capitlist. Many will try but only a few will make it to a glorious life of riches and fame envied by all. Such is the way of the capitlist, a glorious life of many risk.

I wonder, can a person really live life and have any compassion for anything without ever riskign anything?


BTW I love the che t shirt advertisement on thsi website lol


http://cache.spreadshirt.com/users/63000/62441/motives/78/62441_461078_big.gif

[Plagueround]

Funny you mention something about making a website. I am actually working on my AA as a Media website designer. I wanna be one of those guys who make s awebsite and sells it for a few million or a few thousand.

I have very bad news for you regarding your hopes for that field.

[JimmyJazz]

Funny you mention something about making a website. I am actually working on my AA as a Media website designer. I wanna be one of those guys who make s awebsite and sells it for a few million or a few thousand.

Ahh yes the life of a capitlist. Many will try but only a few will make it to a glorious life of riches and fame envied by all. Such is the way of the capitlist, a glorious life of many risk.

I wonder, can a person really live life and have any compassion for anything without ever riskign anything?


BTW I love the che t shirt advertisement on thsi website lol


http://cache.spreadshirt.com/users/63000/62441/motives/78/62441_461078_big.gif


shoo

[Reclaimed Dasein]

from buying your own land, making your own city, makign your own factories and being self sustainable?

Can't you produce your own wealth from nothing or do you need to take the wealth of the rich first?

You might say "well we wouldn't have any access to oil or metal" to which I would say 'well why can't you produce something to sell so that you can buy your oil or metal and be self sufficient?'

It doesn't even have to be a city, it can just be a company. A company where janitors and executives get paid the same or where people get paid based on their needs or whatever.

And if this idea would be good wouldn't it spread to other people and wouldn't other people adopt thsi pratice?

Wouldn't this be better then forcing your idea on people by force? WOuldn't it be better to get people to practice communism voluntary then forcing people too?

"Lets do communism who is with me!" Vs "OK we are communist now, everyone will now be force to work for each other from now on!"

It's completely ironic that you worry about communists forcing and taking. Do you think capitalism appeared magically out of the air? Shall we ask the Sioux? The Mexicans? The Blacks? There isn't a neutral position. World wide oppression keeps the system working.

[RGacky3]

A slave is a person who is forced to work and not a person who choose to work under consensual agreement. If this person has no knowledge about other options he might have that doesn't mean this other options don't exist.

Most people are forced to work, because they don't own anything, and thus has very very few options.


Liberation involves men being free from each other. Your system forces men to work for each other. A person of ability and skill that works under your system would be force to help those in need. That is not liberation. You seem to think that liberation somehow means that you get free food and free housing if you need it.


No it does'nt, and even if it did, its better than being forced to work for someone elses benefit that does'nt need help while others starve. Let me ask you, if an old lady falls on the street, are you going to help her up? Probably, if nothing else, because if you don't people will think your a douche bag, are you being forced to do so? No, that being said, most likely you'd do it because your a decent human being, most people would.


Lets suppose a group of communist do manage to save up enough money and acquire some land to practice their ideology successfully. Now whats to stop people from liberating themselves on their own? Whats to stop them from moving to your "paradise"? Do people live in chains or something? Wouldn't you eventually have a ship that goes to oppressive capitlist countries to pick up people and liberate them? And if your system were to be successful whats to stop it from expanding on its own without forcing your system on the world? Wouldn't the wealth made under this system be used to purchase new land to expand into?


If you can't see how that would be inpractical and impossible and would really not solve anything then I don't know what to tell you.

People that need Liberating for the most part can barely afford a roof over their head and food on their table. remember 90% own 10%.

Also communism is'nt about making wealth, its about fulfilling human need.


You're are dead wrong on the last part. A modern day "slave" does have the ability to move to another place. 700,000 people from Mexico move from Mexico to South America with nothign but the shirts on their back and their whole family. SO why wouldn't a modern day slave be able to do this? WHat excuse is there?


How mayn of those 700,000 actually end up making enough money to live comfortably? How many of those end up not seeing their family for years? How many of those die. The excuse is simply, they've got familiies they need to feed stupid.

That explanation, expecting workers to do extraordinary feats and big sacrifices to get ahead (while the rich don't need to do anything), is as stupid as saying "why don't hte slaves just escape." They should'nt need to be superhumans to live decently.

[pusher robot]

Ignoring the fact that in my time on this forum you've proven to be a slightly more coherent version of CaptainCapitalist68...

...We simply do not have the means to accomplish this theoretical commune that keeps getting throwing around and it completely fails...not inconveniences us...completely FAILS to address what we are trying to accomplish. We are living by our principles, which is generating consciousness and building communities (I'm sure you'll readily dismiss any community progress that anarchist and communist organizations have made, and you'll ask me for tons of empirical evidence online...as if it doesn't exist if you can't find it online), and showing people what we mean to accomplish. If we mean to accomplish communal and fair living standards for the entire world, how could you possibly see raising money for a "revleft hippie farm" as even close and not a betrayal of what we stand for?
I would hope being on this site as long as you have you could have seen the difference...otherwise you're just a rather long standing troll.

I put it to you that most objection to the implementation of your ideals is not as much ideological as it is empirical. People are not keen to make huge changes unless they can reasonably be certain that the changes will improve their lives rather than hurt them. If you have the slightest bit of intellectual honesty you will have to concede that self-described communists have a pretty mixed record in that department.

Therefore, how better to promote your goals than to confront this perception head-on by proving it wrong? Rather than just saying "yes it is" to their "no it isn't," you could have actual, empirical proof that these goals are workable in a modern society and will result in material benefit, proof that would demolish probably 90% of opposition. It baffles me that you would view this as a useless development.

[JimmyJazz]

shoo

Still waiting for your reply to this, CaptainCapitalist.

Or are you too busy making millions lol.

[Plagueround]

I put it to you that most objection to the implementation of your ideals is not as much ideological as it is empirical. People are not keen to make huge changes unless they can reasonably be certain that the changes will improve their lives rather than hurt them. If you have the slightest bit of intellectual honesty you will have to concede that self-described communists have a pretty mixed record in that department.

Therefore, how better to promote your goals than to confront this perception head-on by proving it wrong? Rather than just saying "yes it is" to their "no it isn't," you could have actual, empirical proof that these goals are workable in a modern society and will result in material benefit, proof that would demolish probably 90% of opposition. It baffles me that you would view this as a useless development.

All I will say at this point is I am not at all opposed to the idea of eventually creating communes...perhaps in the near future this could be a reality. Obviously, an anarchist that thinks ground up communes, squats, and the like are ineffective and stupid isn't really an anarchist, but this is something that requires proper planning and execution, as well as recognizing the right timing, which I personally do not feel it is. I can tell you that I am opposed to piggybacking off capitalist production to form an isolated commune that would not have the power needed to fend off attacks from the government (especially in the US).

I think I might write a paper on this subject to address what I feel would be effective and what would not.

[KickMcCann]

I haven't posted here in a while, but this capitalist's idea has sparked my opinion. If the capitalist economic system is to be done away with, an alternative system must already exist to take the reigns of the means of production, building a new one from scratch in an unpredictable power vacuum is no answer.
The same principle of replacement stands true for political revolution as well. Parallel political institutions played a key role in the October Revolution, when the czarist and later the Kerensky political infrastructures were overthrown, they were quickly replaced by already existing Soviet workers' councils and the party organization. These revolutionary institutions were already in place before the revolution, and were organized without any assurance that a revolution would occur.
Looking at our own era, we have every opportunity in this generation to start establishing parallel economic institutions, that is a communist economic system operating within the capitalist system, much like a virus setting up base in a host. The materialization of that concept lies in the creation of worker-owned cooperatives with workplace democracy and equal share of the profits. It would have to be capitalist in its external nature, that is, providing a good/service at a competitive market rate, but internally the workers would benefit greatly from higher income, a direct say in management, easier hours, etc....
A worker-owned cooperative can easily outperform a hierarchical capitalist firm because it is not beholden to the set profit margins of a dictatorial owner(s). Through the flexibility of workplace democracy, the workers can wrangle the price of their goods, wages, operating expenditures, and theoretically charge less for a product than a capitalist firm. Those low prices, higher wages, and empowering workplaces will endear the cooperatives to the working class. And if you can out-compete, buy out, or beat out your capitalist competitors, the cooperatives could gradually reach a level of dominance.
At this stage of growth, lets the say the government/ruling class tries to shut you down, either with bullets or bureaucracy. This attack on a system dear to the working class could be the impetus to spark an anti-capitalist revolution, much more so than fancy fliers and literature alone.
Successful revolutions always had parallel institutions established within the old system, just waiting for the opportune time to replace it. As it now stands, we have nothing credible with which to replace the capitalist economy. But it can be built, we just have to suck up our pride, get creative, and get to work.

[Plagueround]

I haven't posted here in a while, but this capitalist's idea has sparked my opinion. If the capitalist economic system is to be done away with, an alternative system must already exist to take the reigns of the means of production, building a new one from scratch in an unpredictable power vacuum is no answer.
The same principle of replacement stands true for political revolution as well. Parallel political institutions played a key role in the October Revolution, when the czarist and later the Kerensky political infrastructures were overthrown, they were quickly replaced by already existing Soviet workers' councils and the party organization. These revolutionary institutions were already in place before the revolution, and were organized without any assurance that a revolution would occur.
Looking at our own era, we have every opportunity in this generation to start establishing parallel economic institutions, that is a communist economic system operating within the capitalist system, much like a virus setting up base in a host. The materialization of that concept lies in the creation of worker-owned cooperatives with workplace democracy and equal share of the profits. It would have to be capitalist in its external nature, that is, providing a good/service at a competitive market rate, but internally the workers would benefit greatly from higher income, a direct say in management, easier hours, etc....
A worker-owned cooperative can easily outperform a hierarchical capitalist firm because it is not beholden to the set profit margins of a dictatorial owner(s). Through the flexibility of workplace democracy, the workers can wrangle the price of their goods, wages, operating expenditures, and theoretically charge less for a product than a capitalist firm. Those low prices, higher wages, and empowering workplaces will endear the cooperatives to the working class. And if you can out-compete, buy out, or beat out your capitalist competitors, the cooperatives could gradually reach a level of dominance.
At this stage of growth, lets the say the government/ruling class tries to shut you down, either with bullets or bureaucracy. This attack on a system dear to the working class could be the impetus to spark an anti-capitalist revolution, much more so than fancy fliers and literature alone.
Successful revolutions always had parallel institutions established within the old system, just waiting for the opportune time to replace it. As it now stands, we have nothing credible with which to replace the capitalist economy. But it can be built, we just have to suck up our pride, get creative, and get to work.

This is correct, and a damned good post. It should be noted it is not the same as the OP's suggestion that we simply create a city of our own (where we are vulnerable and would not benefit from the community around us) and ignore the rest of the capitalist system, which is essentially asking us to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world.

[Forward Union]

from buying your own land, making your own city, makign your own factories and being self sustainable?

Well I was going to open up a multi-national oil drilling bussiness, with the aim of moving out and conquering the aviation industry and microsoft. I had no aspirations to own a city, but at some point I planned to have a golden tower, from which I could manage my empire. And my own desk, with my name on the door, yea.

But then I just really couldn't be bothered. That's the only reason Im not rich. Im just lazy.

But this thread is kind of an inspiration to me; I think I'll become a billionaire bussiness owner next week. That is, if my Tescos job application gets rejected. Unless you're suggesting I should not even apply for checkout work at the local supermarket and just go straight into being a bussiness manager? I can see the logic, but actually, this place is just round the corner, and the other job sounds like more effort, and like theres a lot of comuting involved.

I'll weigh it up and let you know what my decision is later.