Can socialism be non-authoritative, voluntary or libertarian?

Socialism is an ideology which puts the control of the capital into the hands of the "society". So decisions regarding the use of capital must be made (democratically, undemocratically, nevermind...). The imposition of these decisions may be regarded, in theory, as "nothing but workers imposing their will on themselves", but in reality, no such thing exists. There must be workers, or more equal or less equal workers, who disagree. Then, wouldn't they, having been forced by the collective, be the victims of authority, by man made rules? (1)

Socialism gives much emphasis on equal distribution of the wealth, or "according to the needs...", etc. So in the socialist system, the product, being produced by the worker, does not remain in the hands of the worker, but, according to some rules of justice, must be distributed, (justly xD) in some way. Is there anyone who expects that kind of function to be done voluntary? And if there is, what about the people who do not want to voluntarily give the product in the hands of, say, a disabled person?

Socialism means equality. Some socialists say equality of result, others of "opportunity" (not too many socialists believe in the latter, but I think it's a legit debate option). We all know, save for some not too intelligent people, that we are all being born unequally. In what voluntary way could equality of results, or opportunity, be established? (2)

And if now we can talk about liberty. It is indubitable that wherever socialism has established (I mean establishment, not theory and sci-fi), the individual was left with significant amount of less freedom than the personal freedom that the capitalist system provides. To argue against this, i.e., to refuse to see the people escaping socialism to enter capitalism and to see it differently, is equal to be a blinded Stalinist saying that Stalin didn't kill no one.


So the question is: What personal liberty, if any, can an individual have, when he is part of a collective? Isn't that individual liberty disproportionate to the degree to which he's part of the collective? (3) If we're talking about democratic processes, can he leave the collective, after the voting booth decides against his will? Can he be truly independed when all capital and all of the earth belongs to the "society"? Can he work for himself, in any way, and not having the representatives of the society over his head?

Is there anyone in here who could actually try to answer and not just try to give the impression that "Oh I'm a knowledgeable socialist, I should rule, vote for me, follow me, you know, for you, just to protect you from the evil."?

In all my life (24), I've talked with many socialists of all trends, so called anarchists, and generally left wingers. No one could justify such a position. In most of them it was obvious that they didn't truly believe they are anti-authoritarians. They all ended up doing one thing, trying to impress bystanders saying "oh this guy is a capitalist, is a greedy bastard", "don't listen to him he's evil", "he doesn't understand socialism", "the true meaning, the real meaning of socialism and progress my brothers"... Well if socialism has a meaning then it has to be able to be expressed with words.

Let us not fill the gaps of our ideas with nihilism and fanaticism...

Moved to OI Learning as this is a question about if worker's can actually run society.

Well first, Marxism and Anarchism are ideologies and the general overlap between them is striving for working class self-rule over production and society in general, not "society control" of people which IMO is an abstract and meaningless phrase (because who makes up "society" at any given historical time?).

Disagreements is part of any democratic process and, is the entire reason such methods of coming to a decision for a large group of people. Socialism doesn't mean uniformity of opinion or thought or equality of personal pereferences or passtimes or skills. What it does mean is that no one person has more power over another. Bourgoise Democracies promise this to populations - a "universal equality" but this is "legal equality" whereas socially, my opinions on public education do not mean as much as the beurocrats like Arnie Duncan or billionaires like the Koch brothers or Rupert Murdoch or (back in the day) Randolph Herst, or Bill Gates (Gates, Broad, and Koch all have well-funded foundations dedicated to privitization of public education in the US).

But even beyond this political equality, the monopolization of the means of production (which just means the ability to produce things in a meaningful way) means that the vast majority of who is not independantly wealth must submit to wage-labor. US Libertarians would argue that "we can all start a job" which is a joke because on the one hand, the US has one of the worst rates of sucess for small business and it's the top major companies which set the agenda and call the shots in the economy for the most part... if Wal-Mart does it, then everyone else has to play catch up or play by the standards they set because of their size in the economy or go under (which is why small businesses tend to hate Wal-Mart). On a more fundamental level, we can not "all go start a business" because without a large pool of wage-laborers, capitalism can not function.

Socialism presupposes that a significant chunk of workers consiously take over production and socal functions themselves and run it together. So yes, it would be voluntary, it could be no other way. The Eastern European countries that had "imposed" socialism had nothing resembling socialism except in rhetoric. Socialism is not a series of policies or economic programs, it is replacing rule by the logic of capitalism with democratic (in my opinion, but revolutionary anarchists might favor other decision-making methods) control of production by the people who collectivly labor and based on meeting needs and wants, not amassing profits irregardless of meeting needs and wants (few people want large militaries, but the capitalists need them in order to make sure pirates don't stop trade and bandits don't raid storerooms and competing economic powers don't gain advantage and call all the shots - all humans want food to eat and we currently have the capacity to feed everyone, but it would be unprofitable to do so).

By not organizing society around some eliete profiting off of others and maintaining that exploititive relationship by ensuring that those without weath must work to pay rent and eat. Again "eqality" when we are talking about socialism means having the same power as anyone else. Does that mean I will be able to be a great baseball player magically? Does that mean everyone will paint or sing "equally"? No. It does mean that my say at my job can get the same hearing as anyone else on my job. It means that community members will decide issues about how their community is constructed and arranged, not "the market" which means real estate developers in league with City Hall decide how communities are built and arranged and rationed out.

After the Russian Revolution, people fled there. When socialism wasn't maintained and a new exploitative arrangement based on production guided by state burocrats solidified, yes some people escaped many did not like it, some cynically took advantage of it and most just tried to get by, just like in the US or UK.

And what freedoms are inherent to capitalism? I think what you mean to compare here is bourgoise democracies and the USSR-model countries. Capitalist societies can be extreemly repressive or provide a certain degree of social rights, but this is not automatic, it depends on the social situation and the needs of the capitalist system at any given time. If the capitalist rule is shaky, the capitalist government will tend to be more repressive overtly, going as far as having military rule or even throwing support behind fascist movements to crush unions, reds, and rebellious workers. If there is a degree of stability socially and economically, bougoise democracies of some sort tend to be favored. Pinnochette, for example, helped put a lot of neoliberal policies into effect but because there was popular opposition to it, he was also incredibly brutal and was tasked with physically destroying and terrorizing the trade-union movement.

Production is already collective... unless you made the computer that you are typing on with materials you mined and shaped yourself. Who built that computer? A collective of a bunch of people from the engineers and designers to the production workers of various companies to the delivery drivers and so on. But this is a collective run autocratically by those who have the wealth to organize all this labor or these resources. We propose that these collective efforts are also run collectivly, i.e. democratically.

When you go to work, how much personal liberty do you have? Most people can't even take a shit except for during designated times, most people can't wear the clothes of their choosing, most people have no control over the conditions and pace of their work. This is not generally because of "natural" reasons of scarsity or urgant need like a fireman who works fast because of an emergency where time requires it - in capitalism it is because the more value that can be extracted from workers (by paying less or making workers work faster) the more profits that can be made.

In the capitalist-ruled autocratic collective of today can you do this? Can you say, I reject money and go farming on some empty land or live in a forclosed home... well you can, but then some men with guns will eventually show up to remove you and posibly imprison you.

Your question here is weather it's better to have the "tyranny of the majority" i.e. democracy or "tyranny of the minority". I think I'd have a much better chance in having a say in how things are done that impact my life with the possibility that I will be in a minority position temporarily than today where I have no say in the chemicals put in my food or the conditions of my housing (yes, limited choice in this case, but I can choose one appartment to rent or another).

Revolutionary socialists do not think that meaningful change can come from within institutiond designed to manage and protect capitalism, i.e. the capitlist state. In addition we do not want workers to be "followers" we want people to take history and the things that matter into their own hands. But, because our whole society is based on collective efforts of tons of laborers and professionals, only by collectivly, democratically, taking things into our own hands can we actually achieve a life where we can have this level of input on a mass scale.

No one is a "victim of authority" if they behave in a disruptive manner and, as a result of their behaviour, the rest of society refuses to cooperate with them.

In modern economic conditions, commodities are produced by the workers. Notice the plural. An individual workers can produce almost nothing without the cooperation of other workers; without commodities made by other workers, they can produce precisely nothing.

I doubt Stalin personally killed anyone; as for "scientific fiction", the notion that the average citizen of Bolshevik Russia had less liberty than the average citizen of the Russian Empire would almost be worthy of the title, if it wasn't blatantly unscientific. As it stands, it deserves only the moniker "fiction".

Only if "personal liberty" means "starvation"; there is no right that can, in modern social conditions, be secured by the lone individual. Every single right, bourgeois and economic, requires collective action: organised bodies of armed men (whether separate from or identical to the labouring population) that can enforce that right against those that would transgress against it.

I think collective decision-making will by its nature leave someone disagreeing, this should seem obvious to any sane person. Any society will include humans making decisions as groups.

1. This is already done in smaller scale through taxation. 2. To me socialism means exactly that, getting to enjoy the fruit of your own labour without capitalists and rentiers taking a share. However some redistribution is needed to ensure a decent standard of living for disadvantaged groups (unemployable, or those employed in non-paying fields like homemakers).

I dont think it would voluntary, but abolishing inheritance would be a big step forward. A lot of countries dont have free higher education so thats a big one as well.


If you mean USSR etc, those werent socialist.

I'm not sure what youre getting at, since liberty exists in many different levels and forms, but if you mean would a person have personal capital assets and would self-employment be possible, then I think yes. Its also important to remember the distinction between ''private'' and ''personal'' property. Private property is property that a person owns but is used by others as well, personal property is only used by its owner. For me, socialism means abolishing private, not personal property.

These are just my opinions. Maybe someone else will give different answers. Hopefully theyll also be more articulate ;)

No. Its a question about whether workers can " actually run society" socialistically.

Critiquing capitalism does not answer this. Nor does comments such as "it means that community members will decide issues of how their community is structured and arranged."

LOL, that's what all dictators say. Society cannot tolerate disruptive elements like "anarchists". And it's true that the mass of society believes that "anarchists" are disruptive elements, but all people tolerate "anarchists". Only those in power can physically attack a group. If the rest of society refuses to cooperate with socialists, socialists will be dead and those in the socialist camp will struggle to escape socialism. Historically proven, too...


Work is not social but personal. The fact that an individual can cooperate with others doesn't change the nature of labour, with is personal. The social nature of work is always being mentioned by people who wish not to work and take the product of other's people labour, by naming it social. Disabled persons who don't work, for example, do not produce nothing and are not part of the productive process, though they are members of society.

All products in capitalism require cooperation. Free market, which is a voluntary institution coordinates this process. Five year plans are not voluntary.

For every 5000 people socialism killed 1 person was killed by the czars. Every capitalist, or semi-capitalist regime (czars were not products of any free market, nor they allowed people to trade freely)had been more free than any socialist regime.



You're off the topic. I'm talking about liberty, anti-authority and voluntarism.

And you're implying that even though socialist regimes were unfree they gave food to the people? Every five year plan in Russia had a period were millions of people were dying by hunger. Holodomor killed more Hungarians than Hitler killed Jews. 20.000.000+ people died in China by hunger. and you're talking about food! Food in North Korea? Food in Cuba? Food in Kongo? Food in Albania? Food on Cambodia? Are you living on Mars?

There is not a single socialist regime where people had food to eat. Not a single one.


And not a single argument too.

All this tiresome verbalism to conclude to this : socialism cannot be voluntary.

If an action must done collectively then the question of voluntarism comes second. You cannot say you expect collective action to be voluntary and serve it as an argument. It's wishful talk, which is also based on the wish that the collective is better than the individual, which is strongly opposed by any majority in any society. Even democracy is just a legalization of the imposition of the "labour" government into the throats of the people. You are not willing to accept nothing democratically save for your own vision. You do not really expect collective action to be voluntary.

And yes voluntarism is designed to protect capitalism. That's what all socialists fear it and handle it with so much care.

No it's not, as a pal said a couple of post ago. Dictators and Stalin can run a socialist society too. So why wouldn't a worker or some workers be on top like so many socialist killers did and run a society? We all know that any worker can run a socialist society as a dictator. I know that, I'm not asking that.

It's a question of the nature of socialism, it's whether that kind of government, which all marxists, like Stalin, Pol Pot etc, had in mind, can be produced and sustained in a non-coercive way. Even if all workers are on top, and there exists the utmost institutional equality where no one has any more power than the others, I'm not asking that. I'm asking if they have power over the others how can that be voluntary and non coercive?


I'm asking whether they can act voluntarily as individuals and abide by collective planning, decision making, with no one forcing no one. It's about the nature of the socialist ideology.

And how voluntarily can a collective come to existence? It's about tactics.

Moved to Learning to be undermined and intimidated.

Irregardless if the question is "can workers run society" or "is socialism possible" (which would be synonomous from a materialist class perspective), it's an OI question, not a question about Revolutionary theory from a Revolutionary perspective and that is why it has been moved.

I'm likely repeating stuff that has already been said, but revolution itself is an authoritarian notion. Currently society is run by the upper classes since they can essentially buy their way into positions of power. Really the only way to successfully abolish that is through revolution. Of course that's authoritarian to those in power since they're being forced out of their positions of power. So yea, socialism is authoritarian to the tiny minority of bourgeoisie but to everybody else I don't see how it's authoritarian.

So to the original question, socialism would actually be less authoritarian to the majority of society since they would actually have control over how their lives are run. Also, people get what they produce. That's fair, considering now you have people who hoard more than they need while others starve.

Lastly, as far as personal liberty goes that exists too. You could actually do things you want to do rather than being a slave to some capitalist master.

Are you interested in hearing our viewpoints, or is an attempt to explain the difference between views "tiresome"? Don't be insulting, you are a guest here and it's easy enough to ignore someone who demonstrates no real interest in a sincere exhange of fundamentally opposing viewpoints.

At any rate, "Voluntary" in the sense you are using it is a meaningless abstraction. To have society function on the level it currently does (or below as well as above the levels currently possible) it takes a collective effort. Shipping goods, production, etc are all collective and "involuntary" and organized around exploitation which requires repression of the exploited labor force.

We propse that those exploited producers actually run and manage this collective effort, thus democratizing this effort. So it's is not "voluntary" in the abstract sense that you mean it; it is compulsorary in the same sense that if you want water from a well you are "forced" to carry a bucket. Capitalism is not voluntary and in a worker-run world the need to do some labor in order to make sure food is made and so on will be "compulsorary" but it will be run democratically as opposed to privitly for privite profits.

"Collective" is not in opposition to "induvidual" IMO, because collectives or "society" is just a collection of induviduals. It's the organization of a collective which makes it more repressive or more liberatory. To have a society where some can systematically have power over others can be nothing but repressive because the people who benifit from such a system will fight to maintain those kinds of relationships. Socialism in the revolutionary sense (not reformist or Stalinist) is a collective based around the collective desire for liberation - this doesn't mean that everyone wakes up and just does whatever the fuck they want at all times (otherwise we'd all starve), but it does mean that we can coordinate as equals.

Could people be hermits and live on their own and not interact with the rest of society if they wanted? Sure, workers would have no problem with that as far as I could see - unless that person was a sabatour or bandit or something that is a direct threat. But unlike capitalism there would be no fear that if people live off the land by themselves that they are "squating" or violating property rights. If a community of people wanted to do that, then sure, they could go off and organize themselves however they wanted on unused land. Could people go and start a "capitalist" community? IMO No they could not even if they wanted to because conditions that allow capitalism to flourish would not exist - essentially the town would be a bartering town that artificially uses paper money to represent the bartering; it would be capitalistic in some surface features but it really wouldn't be any sort of capitalism in a meaningful way because capitalism requires compulsion and exploitation at a level that would be hard to maintain as an isolated bubble. It would be like if someone in Arizona wanted to set up a town that was feudal. They would have more sucess because feudalism is already a sort of atomoized system that can thrive in isolation, but it really wouldn't be feudalism as we know it - more like a really repressive co-op.:lol:

To have homes and food and so on, it takes a collective effort, but the question is how is this handled and taken care of. So on one level there will be things that are not very pleasant, but necissary. Because things are self-managed however, these unpleasant necissities will necissarily be evaluated and prioritized and organized in a way that will get the job done, but reduces the unpleasantness as much as possible.

So for example, a self-organized community will have to figure-out how to handle waste. Since most people could come together and democratically decide that trash collection is a necissary but unpleasant task, there would be a more general understanding that this is a community responcibility that "must be done". If they can't find someone who just loves to pick up trash, then they will have to decide to divide up the task amonst everyone or provide incentives for the trash collectors, like maybe they don't have to pitch in with other community efforts. People accomplish tasks in this way all the time as it is when money and power are not part of the equation. People lived this way for thousands and thousands of years before established class societies.

I don't know what you mean by this term "voluntarism", please explain.

What we ultimately want to see is a completely mutual society - I'm not sure if this is what you mean by "voluntarism". It is not possible automatically, but I think this would be the natural evolution of a society based initially on a society run democratically by the workers/producers. Tasks that are necissary or boring or unpleasant would be reassessed and changed IMO due to these new relations and new democracy in society. There would be an inherent incentive to finding ways to make boring tasks automatic, unpleasant ones automated or accomplished in new ways to reduce the shittyness of the task. This incentive does not exist in capitalism and often the incentive is for tasks to trend the opposite way: deskilling labor tasks, automation causeing speed-ups and increased pressure on a reduced workforce, etc.

But with basic tasks reorganized and with the collective power of production - even if it only remaind at current levels - many things would be done on a mutual or volunteer basis. If people thought there needed to be more public art, they might gather some like-minded artists and then talk to a neighborhood council and then cooperate on a public arts project. A society where production was geared toward "use" rather than "profit" (and run democratically by the worker-producers) would probably also instantly reduce the amount of labor needed (all the tasks focused only on profit-maximization, like telemarketing and advertising and so on would be instantly redundant) and so work-requirements generally could be reduced which would give people much more time to engage in mutual or induvidual projects.

They can run a government that calls itself "socialist" just as a party in capitalism can run and win parlement and call themselves "socilaist". But Socialism as a system, means a society where the working class has reorganized society, consiously in their own interests. The Russian Revolution represents an attempt at this, the Paris Commune, the Anarchist areas of Spain and many other short-lived rebellions and revolutions are attapts at this. Most failed through outside repression (as well as some subjective mistakes) and the Russian Revolution got further but within a year or so was already hitting the limits and the problems of an isolated revolution in a mostly agricultural society.

These countries were repressive because of the LACK of working class control over society. If production and the running of society were organized and coordinated from below by the laboring population, then if the majority votes for X plan, then there is no repression necissary because it has majority support. Capitalism and the so-called "Communist States" which I categorize as State-Capitalist (accumulation run by a state beurocracy rather than workers [socialism] or privite capitalists [market capitalism]) are repressive because they are exploitative.

Initially a level of class power and repressive abilities will be needed - this is called Revolution where workers will focibly have to enforce their collective will and organization over the will of the current rulers and guardians of the status-quo. Since they use repression and coorsion to prevent this, it is just a necissity that workers will have to do similarly. Just look at how Mubarak tried to keep his power - that was just one regime fighting in a self-interested way if it's a whole class of exploiters who fear the loss of their power, they will use everthing they can to prevent workers from liberating themselves.

So the majority will initially have to have the ability to repress the former ruling class and their toadies. It is a fact of all revolutions: there has never been a completely peacful transition of power from one class to another.

People get together discuss priorities and decide how to accomplish what they need to accomplish. So you are acting as an induvidual as part of a collective. If you then agree to something you should be held accontable but it will be self-disipline and "shaming" at worst for daily interactions among people engaged in collective efforts. If someone is not carrying their weight for no reason, then likely the others in the group will put a degree of social pressure on that person. If an able person complete refuses to do anything for their community in a consious sort of way, then they will probably have their privilages reduced - you can't use the communal resturant unless you agree to put in some shifts somewhere doing something for the community.

I don't know how to put these arugments any more simply. Collective efforts should be collectivly managed and run, rather than by a tiny group of CEOs or beurocrats. This doesn't mean that you can have folded shirts if you never do the laundry though, you know? If clean streets are important to you then someone has to do it, but this will be decided democratically rather than through privite companies or unaccontable government agencies.

What does that mean? It's abstract. Are you asking do workers have to have a revolution? Are you asking that within a socialist society, how can collectives inside that society come together around a common project?

Ok, and now to take off my "debate-hat" and put on my "moderation-hat"...
As moderator of the "Theroy" section of the Revolutionary part of this website, I moved this thread to OI because you are arguing against basic points of agreements among revolutionary anarchists and marxists. I moved it to OI Learning specifically because you presented it in the form of a qusetion rather than an argument, and frankly because your questions demonstrated a lack of understanding of our basic viewpoints. That's nothing against you personally, your characterization of our perspective is the common one presented on TV and conservative talk radio and whatnot. I would not have responded to the post if I moved this to "undermine" it and I don't see what is intimidating about this move. I thought this would be the most appropriate place for a thread like this; do you think there is a more appropriate place given that you are not asking questions from the perspective of Revolutionary Leftists (which excludes this thread from Revolutionary section of the website)? I can ask another moderator to step in and move it if you want to make an argument that this thread belongs in a different section of OI.

You do realise that anarchists, except those Randians that refer to themselves as "anarcho-capitalists" and that no other anarchist tendency recognises, also advocate the democratic organisation of the economy? There are quite a few points of divergence between Marxists and anarchists, but this is not one of them.

...disabled persons that can not work "wish not to work"? Charming. I have provided an argument for the social nature of labour; you have merely asserted otherwise without argument.

Interesting statistics. Given how "neat" they are, and that the tsarist regime lasted significantly longer than the Soviet Union, I have a rough idea of where you got them, but for the sake of argument: can you provide a source?

Then read the rest of the paragraph you have mangled.

Every five year plan? Regrettable to hear that millions of people were starving in Russia in the seventies. As for the "Holodomor", this is alleged to have happened in Ukraine.

You seem to have no interest in debate, to be honest.

Once a worldwide socialist revolution has done away with the rule of the capitalist minority, people would no longer be exploited by 'ownership' and instead would have full latitude to work for themselves, in their own best personal interests -- this aspect would be the "right-wing" of genuine socialism, meaning its most autonomous-individual quality, as an option for sheerly individualistic living, since nothing could preclude it.

If someone could self-manage themselves virtually from cradle to grave without having to depend on -- possibly even *interact* with -- anyone else, they would have free reign to live that way since they would have a "legal" individual-proportionate equal claim to political autonomy and share of the world's natural resources. Any efforts / labor they took on behalf of themselves, *for* themselves, could not be denied to them since there would be no political basis for such.

We know, however, that most people are not interested in living this way -- it's mostly an idealized abstraction that serves as a construct for a thought-experiment, *not* as a real example from actual social reality.

So, a more-socialized individual would most likely tap into pre-existing resources from humanity's accomplishments to-date -- culture, learning, etc. -- and leverage that in cooperative ways to provide for oneself, *and* to add to the ongoing collective endeavor. This happens to varying degrees, where some might like to be more-individualistic, to some who are more small-group-oriented, to others who are more institution- / academia-oriented, to still others who are more humanity- and global-oriented, as through revolutionary politics.

It's possible to imagine a few who, for whatever reason, would not be able to extend their own efforts very far, and who might even wind up *consuming* more material resources from society and nature than they give back -- but a quick moment of thought will reveal that this particular population is *outside* the norm of the regular person, and they would have a negligible impact against worldwide production based on their own individual consumption needs. Their personal limitations would have a societal *complement* in that the larger, self-liberated non-exploited humanity would have a collective interest in *decreasing* the greater-and-lesser variations within its entire worldwide population -- it would continuously seek to make sure that it wasn't being "exploited" by "having to share" with those who weren't contributing to the whole in a roughly-reciprocal manner.



http://s11.postimage.org/xu76yviwf/free_enterprise.jpg



Since you're not a revolutionary you're merely *picking* at the revolutionary position from afar, on the basis of *formalism* -- as an *internal* matter revolutionaries wouldn't really care that much what *form* a political society would take, as long as it was in a sound direction -- a revolutionarily progressive one.



A revolutionary society would have a collective interest in *not* allowing small groupings to "experiment" with backwards, repressive forms of social order and production.

Well we may just have to agree to disagree on this point. I think early-on when new social relations are still just forming and there is a possibility of sabotage or counter-revolution people will definatly have an interest in ensuring that new egalitarian socialist relations are maintained and can be fully established.

I think if, say, a sort of Zapatista movement or something existed in a region and people wanted to continue to do small farming production in a remote are realitivly marginal (to previous capitalist production) area then it would be in working class interests to come to a mutual arrangement - rather than say mandate from without that induvidual producers be "collectivized". Workers should strive to demonstrate to such groups that their autonomy depends on the sucess of worker's power in the rest of society.

Similarly if there are groups of Amish or something, it would not serve the interests of the new society to "force" them to assimilate. If some cult of or something were holding people to such a community against there will and it came to the attention of people outside, then people would have to decide what to do on a case by case basis IMO and figure out how to either work out a deal to allow people to leave the cult or forcibly prevent the cult from holding people there against their will.

Of course there would be situations that are much trickier most likely, but assuming no other contingancies I think the interest of people in the revolutionary society would be to make sure that socialist relations are established in the main and most vital parts of the economy but if there are some pockets of non-hostile farmers or communes that barter or gather around aestetic tastes or interests I think it would be wiser to ally these outlying communities to worker's power by allowing a degree of autonomy.

That comic was spot-on by the way.
:lol:

Sorry -- I think we're going to have to disagree on disagreeing.... (grin)



Yes, agreed -- please note that the timeframe you're referring to here is *different* than that of the discussion up till now. The scenario has generally been one where society has safely gotten past the rule of capital.



Yes, agreed:




Yup -- thanks.

its easy to say that people will want garbage collected and thus will makd it a priority. Priorities are also to makd jobs automated, "less shitty" ect. However, whats missing is measuring the costs. How many people will collect garbage versus how msny people will repair cars? Should resources be directec toward automating food service versus developing improved mass transit? How many workers should be deployed as garbagemen as opposed to building coppet piping?

How, in the socialist community, do the workers know that their democraticlly arrived at decisions are the best possible option?

Most of this shit shouldn't even exist in a post-capitalist society. Usage of cars would reduce drastically since no one would need to be working useless jobs anymore, I doubt food service would need attention since people are capable of getting food on their own, and we can dispose of garbage however we want to. Stop acting like you're stumping everyone with your lame, half-thought-out hypothetical questions.