My debate with a cappie.

[Mike Fakelastname]

This is a pretty educated cappie, he knew a whole lot about communism, he won the debate, he had beaten me in things I could not argue for my lack of knowledge. It was this:

1. There is to be no government in communism, correct? It's all based on commitees. Like a commitee of grain, commitee of farming machinery, ect. If the commitees were to meet up, this would be too much like a central state, and that wouldn't sit very well. Well, the commitee of grain would definitely have to meet up with the commitee of farm machinery, how would this work out.

2. Oh, and the cappie brought up an interesting point. If we were to have full international Communism, there would be no way for all the commitees to meet up together, they would have to send representatives. Wouldn't these representatives have an upperhand?

3. Yet another thing: Who would distribute the food and money and stuff like that? There is no central state. You couldn't trust common people to distribute these things equally among themselves, and if you got a specific commitee to do it, how could you even trust them?

4. This is a common argument for anti communism. What incentive is there for you to work at all under communism?

5. Under communism, would there be a ton of small communes, or just one big one? The small communes couldn't be entirely self sufficient, and I don't think one big commune is possible, how would this work?

[Mike Fakelastname]

Please answer my questions, it will help me greatly in future debates with capitalists.

[Pete]

There is to be no government in communism, correct? It's all based on commitees. Like a commitee of grain, commitee of farming machinery, ect. If the commitees were to meet up, this would be too much like a central state, and that wouldn't sit very well. Well, the commitee of grain would definitely have to meet up with the commitee of farm machinery, how would this work out.

Since communism is the utopia you should aslo mention that there would be no commitees and people would actually produce what they need and share their extra with those who need it, instead of large scale commitee deals ect. Those are just signs of state capitalism.

If we were to have full international Communism, there would be no way for all the commitees to meet up together, they would have to send representatives. Wouldn't these representatives have an upperhand?

Decentralization is a characteristic of communism, and refer to my first asnwer. His question is irrelevant. A good motto to keep in mind is this: "Think globaly act locally." I hold that to be a generally good idea, and if enacted by everyone individually it would be highly effective.

Of course their may be some structure, but global trade is not a necessity for humanity to exist. It would wither away with the state, IMO.

Who would distribute the food and money and stuff like that?

No money, food comes from your backyard or front yard or the field. Cities in the present scale are impratical, and I doubt they would work. Communism involves huge society shattering changes. Tell him not to expect his current ways of thinking as being acceptable to solving these problems.

There is no central state. You couldn't trust common people to distribute these things equally among themselves, and if you got a specific commitee to do it, how could you even trust them?

I think this is also a mistaken worldview. He obviously is coming at this from his established 'I am right because' viewpoint, which fails to provide real questions. People can be trusted because you can trust your self, your friends, your fellow workers. Can you not? And if everyone has what they need, then why would they strive for more? I mean if everyone is working and happy, then everyone will be sure to make sure that every one has what they need. No need for commitees. How do you think human society began

What incentive is there for you to work at all under communism?

It is also the weakest, IMO. 'From each according to skill, to each according to need.' If you work you get food. If you don't work, and can (like, say, a CEO) you don't eat. Simple, no?

The small communes couldn't be entirely self sufficient, and I don't think one big commune is possible, how would this work

Many smallcommunities who interact with eachother.


I am more or less anarchist right now, so others may have different opinions.

-Pete

[CASTRO_SUCKS]

Originally posted by CrazyPete+Dec 4 2003, 11:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CrazyPete @ Dec 4 2003, 11:59 PM) No need for commitees. How do you think human society began [/b]

Gee, lets see.....one group took care of the hunting...another group took care of the fishing...yet another group took care of clothing...and yet another group took care of shelter......nah...no commitees there&#33;

CrazyPete

@Dec 4 2003, 11:59 PM
......If you work you get food. If you don&#39;t work, and can (like, say, a CEO) you don&#39;t eat. Simple, no?

How is THAT different than capitalism?? All I know is that if I don&#39;t work, I can&#39;t buy a thing and hence get no clothing, no food, no shelter....NOTHING&#33; HOWEVER, I can always fall back on welfare, the Salvation Army and public handouts.

[Mike Fakelastname]

I disagree with most of what you said CrazyPete. The way you put it could never work unless we were to go back to a primitive semi-independant state of living. I&#39;m strongly in favor of commitees for communism, can someone who shares this opinion please answer my questions? No offense CrazyPete.

[Pete]

I don&#39;t have much time until jan. for debates, but I&#39;ll answer you questions because I hate reading the bible, and the genesis to judges is on my exam tomorrow.

Gee, lets see.....one group took care of the hunting...another group took care of the fishing...yet another group took care of clothing...and yet another group took care of shelter......nah...no commitees there&#33;

It is not clothing. As you can see, people did what they did, and then shared with others. No centralized organization. Just sharing and not bastardizing eachother... I see comittees as a bunch of people sitting around talking while others do the work regardless of the outcome of the comittee. Working and sharing is not commitee. Comittee (which I have problay spelt 3 different ways up to this point) is much more centralized and less commonsense.

How is THAT different than capitalism??

I think the main difference is that in capitalism their are not enough jobs for everyone, and there is massive pay inequalities. For example CEO&#39;s and management commitees who comparitively do no actual work (they talk a lot, stamp things that may or may not change the way stuff goes in the reality), yet are paid more, typically, than those working and doing the work at the bottom. If you remove this entire system, and get back to the reality of it all, if no one is out there producing the food, making the clothing, making the shelter, tending the fields, hunting, fishing, ect then you die that is differnt.

In Capitalism it is more about competition as well. I need to work to get ahead. In communism it is more about necessity. I need to eat so I can live, and then after that is satisfied I will take the rest of the day/week off to relax and spend time with my friends and family. Stuble difference, no?

I can always fall back on welfare, the Salvation Army and public handouts.

These are more social democrat or democratic socialist than communist. Some people irringly call it &#39;liberal&#39; but that is because liberal parties today are not really liberal anymore, but that is another arguement. These exist because there are not enough jobs. I mean if everyone who is capable of doing something had a job, then there would be less problems. Why do you think Hitler was so popular? He gave people jobs. (I am NOT equating hitler with communism) It is a simple equation... so when you have jobs these things don&#39;t matter. When you take away the state, when you take away money, when you take away wasteful worldviews and habits and you get down to what really matters, food shelter happiness, you see that to eat you need to work. To live you need shelter and food. To be happy usually requires being satisfied that you pulled your own weight.

It does sound like rightest theory, but it is the complete opposite. Capitalism has competition and money and corporate supremacy. Communism has sharing and happiness and human equality.

I hope that clears things up.

-Pete

[Pete]

Originally posted by Mike Fakelastname@Dec 4 2003, 07:59 PM
I disagree with most of what you said CrazyPete. The way you put it could never work unless we were to go back to a primitive semi-independant state of living. I&#39;m strongly in favor of commitees for communism, can someone who shares this opinion please answer my questions? No offense CrazyPete.

Of course With your avatar I did not expect you too. Of course I would highly disagree with anything any leninist would come up with. If Bolshevika posts here you will see that we differ almost completely.

Different life experiences tend to cause different view points. I see human nature in a positive light.

-Pete

[CASTRO_SUCKS]

Again...so....if EVERYONE is "equal" in a communist society, what incentive would people have in becoming doctors, lawyers, pilots, COPS, teachers, garbagemen, architects, janitors, etc???? What makes you think EVERYONE wouldn&#39;t just want to be something that requires minimal studying and work? In life you NEED competition, you NEED challenge....

Life without challenges is a dull, meaningless existence&#33;

[Hitman47]

yea, im leftist but i still have this question:


If there was communism, wouldn&#39;t there be bad living conditions if we just sit around and work only for our needs, and having no individuality in research to invent new things? <_<

[Pete]

*sighs*

Again...so....if EVERYONE is "equal" in a communist society, what incentive would people have in becoming doctors, lawyers, pilots, COPS, teachers, garbagemen, architects, janitors, etc????

You are being dogmatic on me.

People would do what they enjoy doing. Many doctors are doctors for the money, but many are doctors because they want to help people. You would do what you wanted what you wished to do not what made the most money.

Janitors garbagecollectors ect would disappear. People would realize that having someone take care of them is purely classist in nature and *gasp* they would clean up after themselves&#33; The horror&#33;

Remember, things would not be like they are today. The entire system needs to be irrecociably shattered. Your mindset will become obsolete, and the questions you ask irrelevant.

What makes you think EVERYONE wouldn&#39;t just want to be something that requires minimal studying and work?

Well I for one want to study, I know many people that do. If you are doing something for the money you can &#39;make&#39; afterwards, then you are doing it for the wrong reason. Communism will not make life boring and unchallenging. YOu will just have to learn to challenge yourself, and to become who you want to be. I mean, you will work to live, but once you have what you need to live, you will have all the extra time to relax. What a concept eh?

People who want to get more education would get it. Those who don&#39;t wouldn&#39;t. As I said before, some people want to be doctors to help people. Some people want to learn. Others don&#39;t. No one will be forced either way by greed or by necessity. The priority will be on happiness, not wealth.

Life without challenges is a dull, meaningless existence&#33;

Learn to challenge your self then. It is not that hard&#33; And you DO NOT need competition to challenge yourself and grow.

If there was communism, wouldn&#39;t there be bad living conditions if we just sit around and work only for our needs, and having no individuality in research to invent new things?

You are assuming that what the west has socialized into your mind is true. It is not. You will have more individuality. You will work to achieve your needs, yes, and then you will not work more. What is the point? You will be in the same place anyways. It is stupid to work more than you have to to survive, it causes stress and leaves you with little spare time to become an individual. Inventions are not the mark of a society, in my mind.

-Pete

[Crusader 4 da truth]

CrazyPete cannot sufficiently answer those questions, no one can. Allocation is a big problem and one of the main reason communism remains an un-attainable theory. In order to put it into practice you would have to have to use coercion. When this occurs the faithful simply deny that this is a "true" communist system i.e. (North Korea, USSR, China, Cuba) the cycle never ends.

Mike you are dangerously close to seeing this, and breaking free of this circular logic. Keep pressing for answers.

[Bolshevika]

Originally posted by Mike Fakelastname@Dec 5 2003, 12:59 AM
I disagree with most of what you said CrazyPete. The way you put it could never work unless we were to go back to a primitive semi-independant state of living. I&#39;m strongly in favor of commitees for communism, can someone who shares this opinion please answer my questions? No offense CrazyPete.

Mike you are completely correct. Crazy Pete is a radical idealist with his Anarcho-communism along with the rest of the beloved Che-Libs members. To think that people in a decentralized, federalist nation will give up their wealth to help those in need is just not reality in a reactionary and post-capitalist society.

The people need central committees for guidance, or what the Anarchists call "State capitalism" (this is actually a weird concept on the anarchists part, knowing that under centralized socialism labour is equally distributed) or "evil totalitarian dictatorship". You see, Anarchists oppose all forms of hierarchy, which is obviously extreme utopianism and idealism. They are the definition of sentimentalism. Humanity on a large scale needs atleast some form of hierarchy, if not there is no order. As the cutesy teenage Anarchists say "YEA DUDE, CHAOS&#33; ANARCHY ROCKS&#33;".

They do not understand the truely corrupt nature of post-capitalist society. Completely abolishing a state will only set us back I dono, maybe a couple of thousand years? Let me tell you something, wherever there is unregulated trade, a new class system will always arise. History teaches us this. Anarchist&#39;s support unregulated trade because they claim regulation, equal distribution of labour, goods, meeting basic needs, etc are "state capitalism". Feudalism will eventually re establish itself after a few years of unregulated trade, then capitalism will come back, and guess what? We will be back at square one.

Mike, I like you have much potential on becomming a true communist. Just becareful expressing yourself freely, their are eyes everywhere and if they see one hint of communism in you, Restriction will be your fate.

[Urban Rubble]

Bolshevika

This tactic of yours to label all those who disagree with you "liberals" or somehow untrue communists is getting tiring.

I agree with most of your views of hos a Socialist nation, your problem is that you refuse to admit the mistakes of Socialist leaders/states. That and your support for maniacs like Hussein.

[truthaddict11]

what about Leninism Bolshevika? in all cases it has gone back to capitalism. your argument against anarchists as being stupid teenagers is far from the truth.

[The Feral Underclass]

Mike

1. There is to be no government in communism, correct? It&#39;s all based on commitees. Like a commitee of grain, commitee of farming machinery, ect. If the commitees were to meet up, this would be too much like a central state, and that wouldn&#39;t sit very well. Well, the commitee of grain would definitely have to meet up with the commitee of farm machinery, how would this work out.

This person is claiming to understand what a state is. When actually he dosnt. The state in it&#39;s entirety is a mechnism which controls institutions to use as instruments to keep a ruling elite in power. That is what it was desgined to do, it is what it has always done. It is the essence of a state. he also confuses government and state. The government is not the state. The government is a body of people who pepetrate the existance of the state.

Why would you need these committees? Why would the need to meet? If you have a factory that grows grain and a factory who makes machinery all you need to do is pick up the phone, call them and place your order...there is not need to sit around a table for weeks hammering out every last detail.

Factories would be organized with different responsability areas with people either elected, volunteered or replaced on a rota basis. If it is your responsability to order machinery, you call the ordering responsable person in the machine factory and make your order...no bureaucracy necessary, no central grain committee just plain old working class people getting on with their job.

2. Oh, and the cappie brought up an interesting point. If we were to have full international Communism, there would be no way for all the commitees to meet up together, they would have to send representatives. Wouldn&#39;t these representatives have an upperhand?

Refer to my first answer. It maybe necessary to have wider responsable people working in co-operation with all communes when it comes to dealing with international managment.

3. Yet another thing: Who would distribute the food and money and stuff like that? There is no central state. You couldn&#39;t trust common people to distribute these things equally among themselves, and if you got a specific commitee to do it, how could you even trust them?

Although it was a term coined by Lenin, I feel it to be an apt description. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." In return for contributing some time per week for socially necessary work you would be provided for by society.

Money would cease to exist because it has no use or value anymore. Again, goods would be destributed to communes based on need. If a communal baker needed flour he would contact a factory that produced it and would have it deliverd.

4. This is a common argument for anti communism. What incentive is there for you to work at all under communism?

How do you achieve communism. Through mass class consciousness. You can not achieve it without it. So if a huge mass of conscious workers have juat fought capitalism to achieve communism, it is illogical to then suggest that they would suddenly work to destroy communism.

The incentive would be the existance of a new fair and equal society. This person you were talking to has only a very narrow few of human abilities. He sees everything under the context of capitalism. Move away from that. Human ability and consciousness will be far more advanced in a situation like this.

5. Under communism, would there be a ton of small communes, or just one big one? The small communes couldn&#39;t be entirely self sufficient, and I don&#39;t think one big commune is possible, how would this work?

There will be many communes working in co-operation...A federation of communes.

[The Feral Underclass]

Mike

I disagree with most of what you said CrazyPete. The way you put it could never work unless we were to go back to a primitive semi-independant state of living. I&#39;m strongly in favor of commitees for communism, can someone who shares this opinion please answer my questions? No offense CrazyPete.

You are not talking about communism then.

[driver]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension@Dec 5 2003, 07:32 AM
Money would cease to exist because it has no use or value anymore. Again, goods would be destributed to communes based on need. If a communal baker needed flour he would contact a factory that produced it and would have it deliverd.

For the sake of discussion I am going to extend that comment. Its something that I have questioned before and am not too sure of.

What happens to things like luxuries in the communist world? Could I, as a contributing worker to society go to the local BMW factory and place my order for the latest M3 which will be given to me free of charge? The same could apply to TV&#39;s, DVD players, hifi&#39;s etc. Items not essential to survival but nice to have and enjoy after a hard days work.

END&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

Bolshevika

Crazy Pete is a radical idealist with his Anarcho-communism along with the rest of the beloved Che-Libs members.

A little bitterness I see....

To think that people in a decentralized, federalist nation will give up their wealth to help those in need is just not reality in a reactionary and post-capitalist society.

It&#39;s called class consciousness...

The people need central committees for guidance, or what the Anarchists call "State capitalism" (this is actually a weird concept on the anarchists part, knowing that under centralized socialism labour is equally distributed) or "evil totalitarian dictatorship".

Conscious people do not need guidence.

State capitalism is exactly what it says...state capitalism....there has never been an example of this centrlised socialism distributing labour equally...and in fact have turned out to be totalitarian dictatorships.

You see, Anarchists oppose all forms of hierarchy, which is obviously extreme utopianism and idealism.

No, there not necessary.

They are the definition of sentimentalism.

Does anyone know what this means?...I am sure bolshy dosnt.

Humanity on a large scale needs atleast some form of hierarchy, if not there is no order.

The dillusions of leninists....without order and hierarchies how will you know what to do right&#33;&#33;&#33;

the cutesy teenage Anarchists say "YEA DUDE, CHAOS&#33; ANARCHY ROCKS&#33;".

Friends of yours are they?

History teaches us this.

What history shows us, is that whenever a group of people lead workers in the name of workers power it has resulted in death, destruction, dictatorship, represion and eventually capitalism again.

Anarchist&#39;s support unregulated trade because they claim regulation, equal distribution of labour, goods, meeting basic needs, etc are "state capitalism".

We do not call these things state capitalism...we disagree that in order to achieve them you need to have a great leader with thousands of committees, a police force, army and secret service to achieve it.

Mike, I like you have much potential on becomming a true communist. Just becareful expressing yourself freely, their are eyes everywhere and if they see one hint of communism in you, Restriction will be your fate.

Communism is not what you have described. What you have talked about is socialism...communism is something all together different.

[The Feral Underclass]

Driver

Why do you need an M3 BMW? As for hi fi&#39;s it is up to society to decide. I am sure things like this will be wanted and something will be done about it.

If you look deeper at why things like this are bought. A car like this is most definatly a status symbel. It shows how rich a person is...People buy these luxury items and expensive things because that is what you do. These material objects take on some kind of mystical power which makes people want them. Ivory napkin rings make your dinner table look good, but when you look deeper at it all, what really is the point. What are these inaminate objects actually going to do for your life? Do they make your life anymore meaningful. No, they are just objects which you spend large amounts of cash on. They do not eleviate the problems in your life.

This is why i believe that consciousness will bring about an end to this kind of pointless materialism. People will see that owning an M3 BMW is not really important but that building a society were all needs are provided for everyone is.

[driver]

I partly agree with you, it is a status symbol. But if we are living in a society where there is no currency, it would cease to be that as everyone would have the means to obtain one.

From a personal point of view I would like the vehicle for its speed and comfort. You cannot deny that traveling 500 miles is a lot easier and more comfortable in a car such as the one mentioned, as opposed to the likes of a Fiat Uno.

Just because we live in a communist society should we shun the things that may make life more enjoyable because they formerly represented the capitalist elite?

END&#33;