opression, democracy and communism

[danyboy27]

i was thinking about opression last night and how so many system actually used and still use it. from socialism to capitalism, every system use in a way or another a form of opression, ranging from the monopoly of violence, to a total totalitarian control of the people live.

but in a fully communist society, what would actually avoid opression to take place?

i mean, purely fictionnal situation, a 2000 people town somewhere in the south of the us get together and decide in their code of laws that people from muslim faith should not be allowed to practice their religion, and if they do they will be condemned to 10 year of jail.

in that case, if 1500 citizen vote for that laws this is purely democratic, egalitarian, yet this is a form of opression toward a minority.

i dont see what would avoid that kind of scenario to became widespread in a communist society, ending up with some section of a territory extremly free and other extremely restrictive.

[trivas7]

but in a fully communist society, what would actually avoid opression to take place?

Ben Seattle argues that only democratic rights of free speech and organization (http://struggle.net/struggle/ben/2008/eric/moment_of_truth.htm) create an immune system to defeat corruption and degeneration in a post-capitalist economy. Beyond a cultivation of democracy, human solidarity and participatory social organization, one needs to look towards alien intervention (ala 'The Day the Earth Stood Still'?) for guarantees.

[Revolutionary Youth]

Communism has its own beauty idea, sadly there are people there to messed it up! Vietnam is no exception (I must admit!)! We have a significant number of conservative guys in our government, along with the corrupted ones!

[RGacky3]

Under Anarchism all it would require is the majority of the people in a give area to no want to oppress the minority, which I don't think would be an issue, there arn't that many purely evil people.

Now if your talking about a government/State being involved, I guess who just have cross our fingers and pray the said government/state is benevolent.

[Plagueround]

i was thinking about opression last night and how so many system actually used and still use it. from socialism to capitalism, every system use in a way or another a form of opression, ranging from the monopoly of violence, to a total totalitarian control of the people live.

Indeed.


but in a fully communist society, what would actually avoid opression to take place?
i mean, purely fictionnal situation, a 2000 people town somewhere in the south of the us get together and decide in their code of laws that people from muslim faith should not be allowed to practice their religion, and if they do they will be condemned to 10 year of jail.

This question assumes that a society that has reached the communist stage will have jails and laws, but we've been over that many times, no need to rehash that argument here. For the sake of your example, what do you suppose would compel people raised in a communist society with communist ideals to suddenly do such a thing? I think the question relies too much on the mindset of our current social paradigm and is too hypothetical to have much of an answer. However...


in that case, if 1500 citizen vote for that laws this is purely democratic, egalitarian, yet this is a form of opression toward a minority.

That is not at all egalitarian as it is a form of oppression against a minority. Also, many communists, especially anarchists, are not fond of the idea of a simple yes/no majority vote (for this exact reason).


i dont see what would avoid that kind of scenario to became widespread in a communist society, ending up with some section of a territory extremly free and other extremely restrictive.

What leads you to believe a communist society would simply put up with such things? Do you honestly think everyone would just sit back and go:

"Well, they're oppressing people over there."

"Yes yes, but, you see...they voted on it."

"Oh ok, nothing to worry about then, carry on."

If you care to elaborate on these points, perhaps I can better answer the question, however I think this is suitable.

[danyboy27]

What leads you to believe a communist society would simply put up with such things? Do you honestly think everyone would just sit back and go:

"Well, they're oppressing people over there."

"Yes yes, but, you see...they voted on it."

"Oh ok, nothing to worry about then, carry on."

If you care to elaborate on these points, perhaps I can better answer the question, however I think this is suitable.

tanks for your answer plague. well, i know this simplist, but if the majority of the tolerant people attack or condemn a group of people for being restrictive and take them down, it will mean that the majority will opress the minority, just like when the state arrest a bunch of extremist for being violent. many communist argued with me about the fact that we should not bother about the african conflict, so why should we be concerned about something similar happening elsewhere? should we deal with extremist or adopt a more isolationism point of view?

[RGacky3]

but if the majority of the tolerant people attack or condemn a group of people for being restrictive and take them down, it will mean that the majority will opress the minority

No, first of all, people are not naturally restrictive, and the few that might be, all that you'd need to do is stop them from messing with people, which is'nt oppression.


should we deal with extremist or adopt a more isolationism point of view?

What your asking, is pointless, because the desicion right now is up to the state, and what they base their desicion on, is'nt what they "should" or "should'nt" do, but what will be the best for their and the ruling class' interest.

Heres a good point, during an Anarchist revolution, I don't think theres one case of people who were formally the oppressed, be it working class or whatever, that prefered, or wanted, to be ruled over, and went on the ruling classes side because of ideology.

[mikelepore]

i mean, purely fictionnal situation, a 2000 people town somewhere in the south of the us get together and decide in their code of laws that people from muslim faith should not be allowed to practice their religion

I see there not a question about the good of democracy, but the importance of properly determining the group size. Most generally, should any matters of which kinds of personal behaviors should be legal and which kinds of behaviors prohibited be decided by local democracy? I say no. The kind of democracy used for such questions should be at the widest possible level, the national level at least, and as soon as possible made the subjects of a world government. When legality is left up to localities, human rights tend to be reduced. You get legal discrimination over here, legal child abuse over there, legal theocracy over here, legal censorship over there. With centralized laws, we can all continuously raise our consciousness together and progress together.

[danyboy27]

No, first of all, people are not naturally restrictive, and the few that might be, all that you'd need to do is stop them from messing with people, which is'nt oppression.

people are naturally scared by things they dont fully understand, and often the fews hardcore people tend to be able to lead them beccause of the fear, fear of other religion, other race, other languages etc.

yes, fews people are indeed restrictive, but often they are damn good at exploiting other people fear and radicalize them.

you can indeed get 4 or 5 peoples for being restrictive toward muslim, but how would you deal with a much broader group of radicalized individual? and if they are armed?






What your asking, is pointless, because the desicion right now is up to the state, and what they base their desicion on, is'nt what they "should" or "should'nt" do, but what will be the best for their and the ruling class' interest.

i said in a communist society, not in the current world.

[Robert]

To mikelepore: the one-world government you envision (the right wing whackos aren't quite as paranoid as I thought) could no doubt address the local problems you describe.

Can you think of a down side? Start with the leviathan bureaucracy you'd need to administer the policies of one government in charge of the entire globe. People have a way of not liking government telling them how to live.

Its office of child protective services alone would dwarf the Pentagon.

[mikelepore]

Robert -- enforcement and administration can ordinarily be local, even if the uniformity of policy is establsihed at a high level. Happens all the time. How come the local cops will protect my right to carry a protest sign, even though it's the Constitution that says I may do it? It's a high level passage of the law, carried out locally. There are exceptions, of course. It took federal troops to see to it that a black person was allowed to attend the University of Mississippi in 1962. But thank goodness that those federal troops were provided.

[benhur]

Let's look at this way. In your example wherein 2000 people establish a communist society...if they were so enlightened as to establish communism, why would they even think about oppression, which goes against communism? The very idea wouldn't occur to them, would it? If it did, they wouldn't have been ready for communism in the first place.

Even otherwise, there are two options. If, through a democratic process, the majority agrees to this policy of oppression, then

#1 Either the minority must fight them, in which case the democratic process itself will be rendered useless (else, why fight the decision?)

#2 Accept the democratic process, and let the oppression continue.

[danyboy27]

Let's look at this way. In your example wherein 2000 people establish a communist society...if they were so enlightened as to establish communism, why would they even think about oppression, which goes against communism? The very idea wouldn't occur to them, would it? If it did, they wouldn't have been ready for communism in the first place.

Even otherwise, there are two options. If, through a democratic process, the majority agrees to this policy of oppression, then

#1 Either the minority must fight them, in which case the democratic process itself will be rendered useless (else, why fight the decision?)

#2 Accept the democratic process, and let the oppression continue.

people could fallow the revolution has a mean to survive rather than being pro left, its happened in all kind of revolution, peoples, often acting like sheep will go for the winning side, no matter what their core values are.

[LSD]

How come the local cops will protect my right to carry a protest sign, even though it's the Constitution that says I may do it?

Maybe it's cause they know that if they don't, bigger badder cops will come down from Washington and kick their asses. Somehow I doubt your "prestige" government will engender that same kind of obedience.

Of course, it's when it does start taking names and busting heads that you really need to start worrying. 'Cause the only thing scarrier than power of the 21st century police state, is the power of the 21st century police state with no free market.

You don't like George Bush now? Imagine him owning everything.


To mikelepore: the one-world government you envision (the right wing whackos aren't quite as paranoid as I thought) could no doubt address the local problems you describe.

Can you think of a down side? Start with the leviathan bureaucracy you'd need to administer the policies of one government in charge of the entire globe.

I don't know, I can think a few less pleasant scenarios; global chaos and anarchy's the obvious one. Leviathan's don't emerge 'cause people like them, they emerge 'casue people get sick of, you know, being murdered for their ox-cart (or minivan).

Hobbes was wrong, of course, the leviathan isn't inevitable in all times and places. But given the complete lack of anything resembling a coherent plan for "post-revolutionary" life, I'd say when it comes to "communist" times and places, Leviathan's never too far behind.


This question assumes that a society that has reached the communist stage will have jails and laws, but we've been over that many times, no need to rehash that argument here.

Hasn't it though.

Almost makes you wonder why people even bother raising the issue any more! I mean it's just so obvious how post-revolutionary society will handle issues like crime and legislation. It's almost tragic, how blind these poor naive fools must be not to see the simple answers right in front of their faces.

And I confess, however, I feel some sympathy for these reactionary scabs. I know, I know, they're the dreaded class war enemy and come revolution day, it is my sacred duty to scewer them with the bayonette of a vintage 1916 Russian assault riffle as they charge our glorious barricades of authentic 1870s Parisian debris.

But it's their ignorance that keeps them from embracing the true way, and I feel a duty to reveal the astonishingly detailed plan for massive social reorganization that the communist movement has managed to put together after only 150 years and barely thirty million casualties.

Brace yourselves, you capitalist pig-dogs, 'cause this is going to knock your fucking socks off!

Step 1: Revolution!
Step 2: ?????????????
Step 3: Communism!

Jeff Goldbloom eat your fucking heart out.

***

[the plan detailed above is taken from a post made on these forums a few years back by, I believe, Publius. Please direct all admonishments in his directions. I too am deeply offended that he would reveal our most closely guarded secret]

[Robert]

enforcement and administration can ordinarily be local, even if the uniformity of policy is establsihed at a high level.

Not bad.

That "ordinarily" business worries me some. And yours isn't sounding like the stateless society I thought was at the heart of genuine communism, but I never thought statelessness to be plausible anyway.

[Bud Struggle]

Step 1: Revolution!
Step 2: ?????????????
Step 3: Communism!


Step 4:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/MercutioTomK/steveharragan-1.jpg

[mikelepore]

And yours isn't sounding like the stateless society I thought was at the heart of genuine communism, but I never thought statelessness to be plausible anyway.

I don't have any use for "statelessness." I consider it a 19th century offshoot of such Romantic Age concepts as Rousseau's "perfectibility of man." It's a human nature argument that pretends to reject human nature arguments.

The two common forms of leftist error here has been either to make it a useless tautology, by saying we will have coercive government, but we just won't apply the word "state" to it, if that government is no longer an agency of a ruling class, or to go so far as to reject coercive government itself, which, if enacted, couldn't last more than a few days at most, until people see gangsters taking everything over. More likely than seeing it enacted at all is the result that a nonviable goal prevents the working class from being recruited to a movement for social change, and so poorly chosen revolutionary goals have only succeeded in generating more conservatives.

[RGacky3]

i said in a communist society, not in the current world.

Ok the answer is that its up to the people in the society, their goals, their morals, if they want to try and influence other people, thats what democracy is all about.


people are naturally scared by things they dont fully understand, and often the fews hardcore people tend to be able to lead them beccause of the fear, fear of other religion, other race, other languages etc.

I don't know if this is true, generally that zenophobia is cultivated and then exploited, and even if that was the case, like I said, people generally arn't restrictive, and if no one has the authority or power to exploit fear, it won't happen (most likely), its way more likely to happen if someone has the opportunity for power (i.e. Capitalism and Statism).


yes, fews people are indeed restrictive, but often they are damn good at exploiting other people fear and radicalize them.

you can indeed get 4 or 5 peoples for being restrictive toward muslim, but how would you deal with a much broader group of radicalized individual? and if they are armed?

Which is EXACTLY why we should'nt have a State, because those are the people that end up controlling the state.

[Robert]

Which is EXACTLY why we should'nt have a State, because those are the people that end up controlling the state.

That's a little circular, Gack. What, if not a state, is going to control "those people" or keep them from getting control?

[RGacky3]

That's a little circular, Gack. What, if not a state, is going to control "those people" or keep them from getting control?

Chances are "those people" are going to be the ones in control, infact thats generally how it goes. The State is'nt some magical just entity, its a tool of power used by those in power, i.e. "those people." Also generally even if it is'nt "those people" they end up becoming them because Power corrupts.

[danyboy27]

I don't know if this is true, generally that zenophobia is cultivated and then exploited, and even if that was the case, like I said, people generally arn't restrictive, and if no one has the authority or power to exploit fear, it won't happen (most likely), its way more likely to happen if someone has the opportunity for power (i.e. Capitalism and Statism).

no, people are not naturally restrictive, but it take only 1 problem and a fews restrictive strong guy to exploit it. people who are affraid or who suffer from food problem, health problem, security problem, they will fallow anyone that could help them out, even if this would mean giving up some of their belief or principles.

[RGacky3]

but it take only 1 problem and a fews restrictive strong guy to exploit it. people who are affraid or who suffer from food problem, health problem, security problem, they will fallow anyone that could help them out, even if this would mean giving up some of their belief or principles.

Yeah, so don't give them the tools to do it, i.e. the State.

[danyboy27]

Yeah, so don't give them the tools to do it, i.e. the State.

state or not there always will be creazy people exploiting the masses, its inevitable, i dont see why we should ban the stAte for. its like banning weapon beccause some kid slaughtered a fews people in a school with gun.

[RGacky3]

i dont see why we should ban the stAte for.

Do you see the rediculous irony in that statement? "Banning the State."

[danyboy27]

Do you see the rediculous irony in that statement? "Banning the State."

no i dont

[RGacky3]

How do you bann the state, thats like making a law against laws, the State is'nt something that needs to be banned like people are going to make secret states submit themselves to the states illigal authority, thats rediculous, its like saying we have to non-violently stop non-violence, its nonsensicle

[danyboy27]

How do you bann the state, thats like making a law against laws, the State is'nt something that needs to be banned like people are going to make secret states submit themselves to the states illigal authority, thats rediculous, its like saying we have to non-violently stop non-violence, its nonsensicle

i get it, and i fully understand what a state is, but you and many other communist reject the idea of a state , that you want a stateless society, that why i said ban the state.

seriously gacky, i wish i could share the same confidance in people than you, unfortunatly i dont and i cant really help it, i have been working into logistics and warehouse since almost 3 year, and from my experience, people cannot be trusted at all.