Thread: How is Communism ethical?

Results 1 to 20 of 90

  1. #1
    Join Date Jan 2018
    Posts 37
    Rep Power 0

    Default How is Communism ethical?

    How can a Communist State be considered ethical when it is predicated on the initiation of force?
  2. #2
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,319
    Rep Power 65

    Default

    Moved to Opposing Ideologies
  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ckaihatsu For This Useful Post:


  4. #3
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,319
    Rep Power 65

    Default

    Just f.y.i., ALC, most revolutionaries don't advocate for a *state* of 'communism'. (Exceptions are Stalinists / Marxist-Leninists, and Maoists, which are obviously problematic for that reason.)

    History, unfortunately, played out in such a way that the initial revolution of soviets (worker councils) in Russia in 1917 was corralled and forced into the form of a nation-state, instead of that initial revolution spreading *outward* to the working class of Germany, and throughout Europe and the rest of the world, as was objectively needed.

    As far as the use of force goes, few, if any, would expect a worldwide proletarian revolution against the existing bourgeoisie to be *unopposed*, so, in that particular context, certainly the working class would use whatever force necessary, for the mass-humane ends of empowering itself to run social production to serve human need as it collectively sees fit.
  5. #4
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,151
    Rep Power 164

    Default

    What’s ethical and for whom is something ethical or not ethical?
  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Jimmie Higgins For This Useful Post:


  7. #5
    Join Date Oct 2017
    Posts 27
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Class war is E T H I C A L. Face it, the non-aggression-principle is nonsense.
  8. #6
    fire to the prisons Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date Aug 2005
    Posts 6,063
    Rep Power 100

    Default

    How can a Communist State be considered ethical when it is predicated on the initiation of force?
    I'm not a huge fan of these sort of abstract philosophical dialogues, but one could reply that your ethics are conditioned by the capitalist economy that gives them social form. So current ethics are in reality capitalist ethics, and previously were feudalistic ethics and so forth. Thus a communist state would enact communist ethics, which is to say ethics that are contextualized and conditioned by the communist economy.

    This said, I think that there isn't a communist state; there has never been a communist state; and until there is one we should probably leave such worthless ponderings at the wayside.

    EDIT: Also you may want to take a second look at your question. If you object to "the initiation of force" then you cannot support capitalist ethics can you?
    If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
    - Karl Marx
  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Decolonize The Left For This Useful Post:


  10. #7
    Join Date Jan 2018
    Posts 37
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Thank you for replying ckaihatsu. I don't mean to offend by coming onto this site, I simply wish to have some productive chat.

    My question to you then is as follows... if you say most Communist revolutionaries do not demand a Stateist economy, then how do they propose the redistribution of wealth occurs?

    Here enters my question of the ethics of redistribution. During this process, what happens to those who refuse to give up their wealth to the collective? What happens to those, like me, who would disagree, perhaps even oppose this process? Seeing that there is no state, are they simply killed in the violence of revolution? Are they systematically rooted out as they were in all prior communist regimes? Surely a communist system requires the initiation of force and the homogenisation of belief, no?

    How is it ethical of you to oppose your will onto another?


    CommunistOrganon, the non-aggression principle is nonsense? How so?


    Jimmie Higgins, what is ethical is what is voluntary and consensual. I do not believe the existence of the State and public is a voluntary relationship, therefor it is unethical. Communism, I also see as unethical for similar reasons... The State demands a levy on the product of your own labour, enforced by the threat of violence. Communism is the abolition of private ownership, is it not? It compels collectivisation, and by example is not afraid to use violence.


    Thank you for all engaging with me here...
  11. #8
    Join Date Jan 2018
    Posts 37
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    My ethics are not "capitalist ethics"... they are simply universal ethics based upon the non-aggression principle.

    Capitalism is not the initiation of force, it's based on voluntary interactions between employer and employee, buyer and seller, etc. Communism is not, it compells that you participate in a collectivised society and so any fruit of your own labour is not private.

    There never been and is currently Communist State's in the world. Simply because it never turns out to be the grand utopia it is always described to be doesn't mean it's not Communism. That is simply a testament to it's incapability to function tandem to humanity.

    Thank you
  12. #9
    Join Date Sep 2017
    Posts 6
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Robespierre said, in his justification of regicide, that one does not have to prove that the king committed any specific crimes, since the very existence of the king is a crime, an offence against the freedom of the people. In this strict sense, every violence of the oppressed against the ruling class and its state is ultimately 'defensive'. This is why the standard liberal motto apropos of violence - "it is sometimes necessary to resort to it, but it is never legitimate" - is inadequate. From the radical emancipatory perspective, one should turn this motto around. For the oppressed, violence is always legitimate (since their very status is the result of the violence they are exposed to), but never necessary (it is always a matter of strategic consideration to use violence against the enemy or not).

    What was wrong with the twentieth-century communism was not its recourse to violence per say (the violent take-over of state power, terror in order to maintain power), but rather the larger mode of functioning which made this kind of violence inevitable and legitimized (the party as the instrument of historical necessity, etc.).
  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Spectre_of_Communism For This Useful Post:


  14. #10
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,319
    Rep Power 65

    Default


    Thank you for replying ckaihatsu. I don't mean to offend by coming onto this site, I simply wish to have some productive chat.

    No prob.



    My question to you then is as follows... if you say most Communist revolutionaries do not demand a Stateist economy, then how do they propose the redistribution of wealth occurs?

    I think this is a valid question, and I've taken efforts in the past to make a formulation *of my own*, to address this topic, and related ones:



    'additive prioritizations'

    Better, I think, would be an approach that is more routine and less time-sensitive in prioritizing among responders -- the thing that would differentiate demand would be people's *own* prioritizations, in relation to *all other* possibilities for demands. This means that only those most focused on Product 'X' or Event 'Y', to the abandonment of all else (relatively speaking), over several iterations (days), would be seen as 'most-wanting' of it, for ultimate receipt.

    My 'communist supply and demand' model, fortunately, uses this approach as a matter of course:

    consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily

    consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination

    consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process


    I'm also realizing that this model / method of demand-prioritization can be used in such a way as to lend relative *weight* to a person's bid for any given product or calendar event, if there happens to be a limited supply and a more-intensive prioritization ('rationing') is called-for by the objective situation:

    Since everyone has a standard one-through-infinity template to use on a daily basis for all political and/or economic demands, this template lends itself to consumer-political-type *organizing* in the case that such is necessary -- someone's 'passion' for a particular demand could be formally demonstrated by their recruiting of *others* to direct one or several of *their* ranking slots, for as many days / iterations as they like, to the person who is trying to beat-out others for the limited quantity.

    Recall:

    [A]ggregating these lists, by ranking (#1, #2, #3, etc.), is *no big deal* for any given computer. What we would want to see is what the rankings are for milk and steel, by rank position. So how many people put 'milk' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'steel' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'milk' for #2 -- ? And how many people put 'steel' for #2 -- ? (Etc.)

    *This* would be socially useful information that could be the whole basis for a socialist political economy.

    So, by extension, if someone was particularly interested in 'Event Y', they might undertake efforts to convince others to *donate* their ranking slots to them, forgoing 'milk' and 'steel' (for example) for positions #1 and/or #2. Formally these others would put 'Person Z for Event Y' for positions 1 and/or 2, etc., for as many days / iterations as they might want to donate. This, in effect, would be a populist-political-type campaign, of whatever magnitude, for the sake of a person's own particularly favored consumption preferences, given an unavoidably limited supply of it, whatever it may be.

    ---



    Here enters my question of the ethics of redistribution. During this process, what happens to those who refuse to give up their wealth to the collective?

    With this particular formulation you're implicitly framing the situation within the scale / context of the *individual*. This also, by-the-way, is a standing left-wing *critique* of capitalism since there's currently insufficient *regulation* of these individually-manifested dynamics, such as wealth accumulation, that, on the whole, give rise to mass-*unconscious* dynamics like global warming ('climate change').

    Only a *mass*-conscious, *macroscopic* / collectivist arrangement of the social order can bring about *large-scale* / 'universal' issues for egalitarian consideration and the societal means to proactively address them, since collectivity *transcends* petty individual-type asocial private property interests. I'll proffer the following objective-intended framework:


    History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle






    Since socialism / communism *does* yield a social basis for a greater-than-private social consciousness (as over climate change, *sans* individualism, nationalism, private profiteering, etc.), this is then the objectively required social basis for true collectivism, to uniformly address and solve problems that are *not* sub-fragmented into competing private interests -- petty, small-scale 'rational' opportunisms.

    So this means that the entire concept / understanding of 'wealth' would be profoundly transformed by a nascent egalitarian collectivism over all matters of the material world. Wealth would be redefined / manifested as *social wealth*, meaning people getting the goods and services that they biologically and personally require from society and social production. Such collective-based *provision* of freely distributed goods and services could only be derived from the voluntary, uncoerced work efforts of those who *want* to work for the common social good -- and I myself don't *expect* such efforts to enjoy 100% participation from the world's population.

    Fortunately the technological means *already* exist to provide immense ratios of leveraged human labor, so that until full automation is realized, few work hours would even be objectivey *required* to provide many with what they need for life and livelihood.

    There would no longer be 'wealth' in form of individual-type social empowerment (over labor) through money / *spending power* -- there would only be the entire world of productive machinery, necessarily controlled on a *collective* basis by those themselves who are doing actual work on such machinery, for the common good.

    People, on a mass basis, would have to collectively determine how different types of de-privatized productive assets and natural resources would be used (use-values), free of money-based private control. The problem in proletarian revolution wouldn't be with individual 'holdouts', but rather with the overall prevailing political paradigm that *forcefully retains* private profit-making control over productive machinery and human labor.



    What happens to those, like me, who would disagree, perhaps even oppose this process? Seeing that there is no state, are they simply killed in the violence of revolution? Are they systematically rooted out as they were in all prior communist regimes? Surely a communist system requires the initiation of force and the homogenisation of belief, no?

    How is it ethical of you to oppose your will onto another?

    The world's working class would simply be acting in its own best collective interest -- just as the bourgeoisie does today in violently defending its control over social production (what factories make what). I have a proposed formulation for how counterrevolutionaries could be treated during a proletarian revolution:



    After some additional thought on this topic I came up with a possible approach: Counterrevolutionaries could be 'quarantined' inside of existing *skyscrapers*, with an outer wall and a motion-detecting *perimeter* well within the exterior wall. There could be a conical-shaped *netting* around each skyscraper (and within the motion-detecting perimeter), flared outward, so that anyone falling on the outside of each skyscraper -- for whatever reason -- would have a soft landing and would slide downward and outward, triggering the perimeter. (And/or they could just re-enter the building and resume "regular" life there.)

    The idea is that this measure would be *temporary*, with all of the amenities of life and living provided-for daily inside such a structure, so that such people under 'collective house-arrest' would feel relatively comfortable in the interim until the proletarian revolution would be completed. Doubtlessly there would also be maintenance-type tasks within each building, as well, to keep people busy if they wanted.

    Security cameras on every floor could broadcast their live video feeds out onto the Internet, so that informal voluntary revolutionary participation could be done by anyone, watching the various feeds to keep track of things there. And, derived from such Internet-based involvement could be the makings of an organic mass voluntary participation -- an 'emergent' 'institution' overseeing and tending-to each given skyscraper, with proceedings ongoing on a RevLeft-type discussion board for cooperation and decisive actions given whatever situation.

    Perhaps the most complex aspect of this approach -- as with the whole revolution itself -- would be keeping policy *consistent* across each and every skyscraper facility, so that any possible discontinuities would be solidly ironed-out. The overall idea here is to be as humane as possible to as many class enemy personnel as possible so that they're excluded from active real-world politics, but without antagonizing any of them personally so that they could claim an inherently messy *social* situation and treatment. Once the revolution is completed all such prisoners could then be released because they and their reactionary ideas would no longer have any traction in such a fully post-capitalist social order.
  15. #11
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,151
    Rep Power 164

    Default How is Communism ethical?

    Capitalism is not the initiation of force, it's based on voluntary interactions between employer and employee, buyer and seller, etc.
    historically and factually untrue. If you similarly ignore all social and historical context, you could potentially describe chattel slavery as a system for “providing homes and jobs for homeless people from another land.”

    Communism is not, it compells that you participate in a collectivised society and so any fruit of your own labour is not private.
    society already is a collective effort — a business can’t run without power grids and roads and logistics... and none of these can run without pools of labor. It’s just with power and decisions about that collective and what society produces are centralized in the hands of a tiny (popularly) unaccountable minority. Oh, and incidentally anyone who works for a wage is not getting the fruit of their labor—they’re getting a wage and maybe some kind of percentage bonus if the company does really well. But the only private hands that get the fruit of the collective labor are the hands of our bosses and rulers.

    There never been and is currently Communist State's in the world. Simply because it never turns out to be the grand utopia it is always described to be doesn't mean it's not Communism. That is simply a testament to it's incapability to function tandem to humanity.

    Thank you
    You’re welcome.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Jimmie Higgins For This Useful Post:


  17. #12
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,151
    Rep Power 164

    Default

    Op, was the US Capitalist during slavery, in your view?

    If it is, then wouldn’t that mean that capitalism does need force to generate capital? And isn’t cotton-money really kinda the meta-start-up capital for all US industry?

    If the US wasn’t Capitalist then, wouldn’t that mean force was necessary to establish a capitalist economy in the south?

    What about Europe? How did Capitalism come to dominate there in your view? I can’t seem to think of any examples where either force or modernizing efforts led by the state, or usually both, were not involved to some degree. Has Capitalism never existed?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Jimmie Higgins For This Useful Post:


  19. #13
    Join Date Oct 2017
    Posts 27
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    CommunistOrganon, the non-aggression principle is nonsense? How so?
    This was originally much longer, but it became just ranting and rambling half through the way. This is the updated version.

    1. NAP is not viable due to contradicition inherent in capitalist social settings. What would happen with dissenters in a libertarian utopia? According to the theory of Hans Herman Hoppe, they would be either expelled, or lined up and shot. This is theory. In practice, Friedman, another capitalist ideologue showed that he sees no problem with a regime that murdered its political opponents in cold blood. Abstractly, it could make sense: in the context of material and social reality, it is not implemented even by capitalist thinkers who are supposedly all about non-aggression. Btw, this also applies not just to the present but also to the past of capitalism with child labor (could you really call that voluntary?), slave labor and slave trade, colonialism and colonial exploitation for profit, etc. It is impossible to maintain both capitalist production and NAP.

    2. Can we give food to someone who is starving but refuses to eat? According to NAP, what would be right? Letting that person die – or violate the non-aggression principle? Could be violators of property rights be physically harmed on grounds of self-defense? NAP has some inherent paradoxes in its structure, and I find that it tragically undervalues human life in contrast to private property and and wealth.

    3. Ayn Rand, who is supposedly a chief constructor and ideologue of NAP, never did her homework. She „criticized” Kant, Marx, Nietzsche, philosophers far more complex and better than her, while never even reading their works. She thought that colonialism and imperialism was/is good, and the „savages” (that would be Asians and Africans) should thank Europe and the US. She once linked Aristotle and Romanticism together because supposedly both deal with the potential instead of the actual. I mean, anyone who just BARELY knows any of this stuff, and read one or two paragraphs from Aristotle and knows something about the theoretical side of Romanticism (Schlegel borthers, or Novalis for example) realizes this is garbage. You may say this is a question of taste, and it probably is to some degree, but I would not take advice in ethics from a person who slanders philosophers she didn’t read, who thought of POC as „savages” (in a time when this was not the norm anyomore, which makes it worse), and didn’t even understood the basics of the ONLY philosopher she ever read, and claimed to like. In other words: if the originator of your ethical principle is someone like this, then you better search other people. Hell, even liberal traditions are better than the dumpster fire libertarianism is (a lot better). I wish defenders of the capitalist system would argue its ethics on utilitarian or whatever liberal grounds. But NAP is a catastrophe.
  20. #14
    Join Date Sep 2009
    Location Ontario
    Posts 626
    Rep Power 15

    Default

    Just f.y.i., ALC, most revolutionaries don't advocate for a *state* of 'communism'. (Exceptions are Stalinists / Marxist-Leninists, and Maoists, which are obviously problematic for that reason.)
    Whats "problematic" is relying on demonstrable non-sense to buttress a weak ass 'no true scotsman' argument. Has this fallacious reasoning ever been convincing to anybody, even dumb-ass Capitalists???
  21. #15
    Join Date Feb 2015
    Posts 560
    Rep Power 12

    Default

    God, this site is so dead.

    My ethics are not "capitalist ethics"... they are simply universal ethics based upon the non-aggression principle.
    There is no such thing as 'universal' principles. If they are universal, the logical conclusion, i.e what any person with 2 working brain cells would do is: Ask themselves "Historically, is this true"? Meaning, if I open Virgil or read Bushido or whatever, can these "universal" principles be seen there? The answer is of course, no. The "universal principles" of an Afghan villager are not the same as yours. If you had an IQ above 50 you could have seen that for yourself.

    non-aggression principle
    LOL. How cute. A "principle" enunciated by a charlatan. What is shocking is how such a worthless "philosopher" has became this 'genius' among right-wing scum. She even placed herself alongside Aristotle. Keep in mind this is the same woman that saw religion as a mental disease that should be "exterminated" and that was in love with a serial killer.

    Capitalism is not the initiation of force, it's based on voluntary interactions between employer and employee, buyer and seller, etc. Communism is not, it compells that you participate in a collectivised society and so any fruit of your own labour is not private.
    You really need to open your fucking eyes and see the world for what it is. For what it has been. This is why history is so important and why whenever I've encountered a capitalist degenerate, their comprehension of it is next to 0. Always. "Voluntary" is worthless. It is an abstraction. The interactions between a SLAVE AND A SLAVEOWNER were also "voluntary" to a great extent. Are you so thick as to think that there wasn't a degree of "consent" in these? If even a small fraction of the individuals in question had not "consented", it would have collapsed. The relationship between a 50 year old pedophile and a 7 year old can also be "consensual", "voluntary". These interactions must be analyzed by the relationship they have IN AND OF THEMSELVES. And how they are subsumed into the wider world as a whole.

    And I don't really buy that you are so fucking stupid that you think the interaction between an "employee" and "employer" are "totally voluntary". If an "employee" doesn't work, he starves. Many people actually do starve, in case you didn't know. Believe me, their starvation is not "voluntary".

    There never been and is currently Communist State's in the world. Simply because it never turns out to be the grand utopia it is always described to be doesn't mean it's not Communism. That is simply a testament to it's incapability to function tandem to humanity.
    Just so you know, everything you have posted, has been addressed on this site about 50455343433x times. You aren't really spewing out "good arguments", or anything of the sort. There is no such thing as a "system that functions in tandem to humanity" because humans operate beyond their basic physiological composition. Meaning, the only "system" that would operate "totally in tandem" with humanity would be humans swinging from trees and eating bananas. Because that is what humans were "meant" to do. There will never be a Communist future until Capitalism is extirpated, the state destroyed and the bourgeoisie physically exterminated. So a Communist state is an oxymoron. If you are referring to the USSR or whatever, the USSR "worked". That it collapsed means nothing. The US will collapse too in the near future. Dozens of Capitalist states have collapsed and will collapse. Every year millions starve to death in India, that Capitalist paradise. I guess they just aren't functioning in tandem with humanity.

    Here enters my question of the ethics of redistribution. During this process, what happens to those who refuse to give up their wealth to the collective? What happens to those, like me, who would disagree, perhaps even oppose this process? Seeing that there is no state, are they simply killed in the violence of revolution? Are they systematically rooted out as they were in all prior communist regimes? Surely a communist system requires the initiation of force and the homogenisation of belief, no?

    HAHA. I love these meaningless hypotheticals. What happens when you are an investor working for say Goldman Sachs? What if I, the investor, make a really big deal, make a lot of money but don't want to give up my money to "the corporation"? Oh thats right, nothing fucking happens because it is structured in such a way that this scenario is relegated to utter irrelevance and ridicule. In a "Communist system", people own public property. They have free access to all that is produced so long as they work. What exactly "won't you give up"? Communism (and Capitalism for that matter) are "totalities", which means, if you live within it and you 'disagree', you have the option, I suppose, of becoming some weird Amish or living in a hut in the rainforest. Beyond that, not much.

    if you say most Communist revolutionaries do not demand a Stateist economy, then how do they propose the redistribution of wealth occurs?
    Because it isn't "redistribution of wealth" you abject fucktard. Wealth is merely the sum-total of production. A billionaire doesn't produce absolutely anything. He is a parasite. The "redistribution of wealth", as you say, is actually what has occurred for the past ~10,000 or so years in one form of another, the latest emanation being the Capitalist order. Meaning, the vast majority of people toil, work day in and out, own nothing, have nothing, while a tiny sliver of the population owns the aggregated wealth they did not create because they own the means of production and because they own the means of violence (i.e police, army, laws etc...). It is a dictatorship of capital. \\|

    Many of the people in this thread aren't actually even Communists in any meaningless sense anyway. I know all of this will go in one ear and out the other. But in the off chance that it does not, actually read. And by read I don't even mean Marx or Lenin. Simply read some history and stop being so blissfully ignorant.
  22. #16
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,319
    Rep Power 65

    Default


    Just f.y.i., ALC, most revolutionaries don't advocate for a *state* of 'communism'. (Exceptions are Stalinists / Marxist-Leninists, and Maoists, which are obviously problematic for that reason.)


    Whats "problematic" is relying on demonstrable non-sense to buttress a weak ass 'no true scotsman' argument. Has this fallacious reasoning ever been convincing to anybody, even dumb-ass Capitalists???

    Well, look, if Stalinist types are calling for *national* revolutions -- at best -- then that's basically national-liberation / self-determination for the *country*, within the existing terrain of competing capitalist nation-states. I haven't seen any Stalinist politics that call for *international*, global, proletarian revolution.

    There's no reason *not* to make these distinctions since failing to see certain political commonalities would be *forfeiting* strategic alliances within the larger left, while *over*-emphasizing close differences leads right into sectarianism.
  23. #17
    Join Date Jan 2018
    Posts 37
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Jeez Antiochus, you seem quite hostile towards my presence. You sound just about ready to round up all those evil rich people and just kill them yourself.

    Anyway, I suppose I shall try to respond to those who aren't showing the true vitriolic colours of their ideology, and are being civil.


    Well, ckaihatsu. I must say what caught my attention was how you proposed to deal with the so labelled "reactionaries". I mean, it seems to me that what you are really trying hard to do is dress up the proposition of mass internment (A) as something that would go on with almost disposed compliance from it's victims, (B) as something that only through Marxist ideology, is morally justifiable. Just as through the Nazi ideology it was morally justifiable to 'temporarily' intern the Jewish population; just as it was morally justifiable under Bolshevik ideology to intern the Kulaks; just as it was morally justifiable for the U.S. Government to intern the domestic population of Japanese citizens. Tell me, how high is the moral pedestal that you place your ideology upon that you believe your system of internment will not be as bloody, nor as extravagantly violent as all those before it. And (C) you appear to believe that this internment will be temporary, and to no effect on a post-Capitalist society. That is as if to say that if the U.S. released every convicted felon in every state penitentiary, that crime would go down.


    People have been making comparisons to slavery in reference to the idea of voluntarism (well done, you read Eric Williams). Was it not the State that institutionalised the Slave trade; protected it as an industry; aided it's growth through Colonial expansion and violence? I personally do not see the State as a voluntary force. The relationship between slave and a slave owner is entirely different to the relationship between employer and employee. The employer and employee negotiate their relationship, whereas the slave owner enforces his relationship to the slave through the threat of violence. I am not opposed to unions (those without a monopoly backed by State power), and it's not as if the employer is not incentivised to invest in their employee's. I get the impression that Marxism has somewhat caricatured the employer through some kind of Victorian lens of State-Capitalist elitism; as some kind of rotund, glutinous snob.

    Well, I guess I don't have all the answers anyway. I'm just trying to learn something.

    And yes, I would consider the NAP a universal principle, because I don't want to put a gun to someone's head and tell them to enjoy the revolution.
  24. #18
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,319
    Rep Power 65

    Default


    Jeez Antiochus, you seem quite hostile towards my presence. You sound just about ready to round up all those evil rich people and just kill them yourself.

    Anyway, I suppose I shall try to respond to those who aren't showing the true vitriolic colours of their ideology, and are being civil.

    Well, ckaihatsu. I must say what caught my attention was how you proposed to deal with the so labelled "reactionaries". I mean, it seems to me that what you are really trying hard to do is dress up the proposition of mass internment (A) as something that would go on with almost disposed compliance from it's victims,

    To clarify, then, ALC, here's my treatment from post #3:



    As far as the use of force goes, few, if any, would expect a worldwide proletarian revolution against the existing bourgeoisie to be *unopposed*, so, in that particular context, certainly the working class would use whatever force necessary, for the mass-humane ends of empowering itself to run social production to serve human need as it collectively sees fit.

    You could think of the mass internment of the reactionaries as being like the taking of Prisoners Of War -- I argue that it's more tactically advantageous to treat P.O.W.s *well*, so that their internment is widely seen as a solid war measure, and not some kind of string of personal retributions against capitalist roaders, randomly.



    (B) as something that only through Marxist ideology, is morally justifiable.

    I don't think your political line is coming through clearly -- you're being critical of revoutionary-communist-type *means*, on 'moral' grounds, while ignoring the *content* of what the proletarian revolution is *for*: The collective self-liberation of humanity from private property and the coercion of working for private interests for the sake of a wage in order to live.



    Just as through the Nazi ideology it was morally justifiable to 'temporarily' intern the Jewish population;

    See -- you're equating the actions of *fascists* to those of the communist cause. The *ends* of fascists are for the continuation of the corporate form, with bourgeois government, while communists are all for the *emancipation* of workers from capital's yoke. This is far more than a mere detail, because the 'ends' are the reason for *any* political efforts.

    Of course communists don't apologize for fascism or its treatment of the part of humanity that it had in its grasp. If a wartime internment of unrepentant counterrevolutionaries helped the revolution to proceed more expediently, to a communist-type overcoming of capitalist class relations, and into humanity's collective cooperative social production for itself, then that would be a valid and productive tactic, *because* of the ends at stake.

    You're using this abstraction of 'morality' like a bludgeon, simply to be contrarian to the communist cause, for whatever reason you have, which you're not explaining.



    just as it was morally justifiable under Bolshevik ideology to intern the Kulaks;

    If you haven't noticed yet, I'm not using 'morals' or 'morality' in any of my arguments -- that's because it's *superfluous* to the objective social conditions that exist, the class divide.

    I *do* support the Bolshevik historical trajectory, unlike many revolutionaries here at RevLeft.



    just as it was morally justifiable for the U.S. Government to intern the domestic population of Japanese citizens.

    Yeah, that was my dad, his brothers, his sister, and their parents. The internment of Japanese-Americans was done on *nationalist* grounds, so of course that's unjustifiable from any revolutionary leftist perspective.



    Tell me, how high is the moral pedestal that you place your ideology upon that you believe your system of internment will not be as bloody, nor as extravagantly violent as all those before it. And (C) you appear to believe that this internment will be temporary, and to no effect on a post-Capitalist society. That is as if to say that if the U.S. released every convicted felon in every state penitentiary, that crime would go down.

    Well, I don't know exactly what social conditions will prevail during this future time of potential socialist revolution, so I can't make predictions here. Also, I'm just one person and I don't have any *commanding authority* to unilaterally implement 'my' preferences of political practice. (Again, not based on any conception of morality.)

    Your comparison isn't valid because it's apples-and-oranges -- why should *anyone* be incarcerated for non-violent crimes, anyway -- !



    People have been making comparisons to slavery in reference to the idea of voluntarism (well done, you read Eric Williams). Was it not the State that institutionalised the Slave trade; protected it as an industry; aided it's growth through Colonial expansion and violence?

    So you seem to have principled differences with the *state* formulation, but I think you're ignoring that the state merely represents the interests of the *propertied* class, in a quasi-collective (bureaucratic) fashion. Slaveholders would certainly have gone on exploiting their slaves with or without an overarching *state* present.



    I personally do not see the State as a voluntary force. The relationship between slave and a slave owner is entirely different to the relationship between employer and employee.

    No, there's a solid disagreement here, because without wages for the necessities of life and living one is even *further* dispossessed from any active and/or potentially-influential role in society, as through one's role as a worker. In this way one *is* a 'wage-slave' because unemployment without wealth is *very* disempowering.



    The employer and employee negotiate their relationship, whereas the slave owner enforces his relationship to the slave through the threat of violence.

    Well, certainly the two respective modes of production aren't *equivalent* -- you're pointing out one difference, which is fine, but the employer could be a multi-billion-dollar corporation that enjoys corporate-personhood rights, while the employee / worker is probably living paycheck-to-paycheck, week to week. This is an *implied* coercion, because one has to have money (as from wages), in order to live decently in modern society.



    I am not opposed to unions (those without a monopoly backed by State power), and it's not as if the employer is not incentivised to invest in their employee's. I get the impression that Marxism has somewhat caricatured the employer through some kind of Victorian lens of State-Capitalist elitism; as some kind of rotund, glutinous snob.

    Well, I guess I don't have all the answers anyway. I'm just trying to learn something.

    And yes, I would consider the NAP a universal principle, because I don't want to put a gun to someone's head and tell them to enjoy the revolution.

    Okay, no guns for you -- got it. (grin)

    If you consider rank-and-file unionism to be valid then that's a big step leftward from libertarian capitalism. Do you think that workers should be able to bargain collectively with their common employer?

    The employer invests in whatever *makes a profit* -- this could be infrastructure, materials, or labor, but it's certainly not personal to the individual needs of any given *worker*, that's for sure.

    The non-aggression principle is mostly okay for the context of everyday 'civil society', but how does it get *enforced* -- ? Police have to be paid by the state for 'social peace' which just means that the overall private-property paradigm is upheld by the state -- police are often used offensively against striking workers on picket lines. Are you still supportive of rank-and-file unions now?


    New picket line assault on Verizon strikers in Massachusetts

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/201.../veri-m13.html
  25. #19
    fire to the prisons Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date Aug 2005
    Posts 6,063
    Rep Power 100

    Default

    My ethics are not "capitalist ethics"... they are simply universal ethics based upon the non-aggression principle.
    I'm afraid you missed my point: there is no such thing as "universal ethics." Such a claim (that something is universal) is historically contextualized--for example, remember universal truths such as the humors of the body? That the earth was surrounded by a multilayered dome in which the sun was a specific portion? These "universal truths" were, of course, nothing other than historically contextualized claims similar to your "universal ethics."

    Capitalism is not the initiation of force, it's based on voluntary interactions between employer and employee, buyer and seller, etc. Communism is not, it compells that you participate in a collectivised society and so any fruit of your own labour is not private.
    Hm. In an effort not to patronize you I'll offer you a question. If I put a gun to your head and tell you to choose between an apple and an orange, is your decision "voluntary?"

    There never been and is currently Communist State's in the world. Simply because it never turns out to be the grand utopia it is always described to be doesn't mean it's not Communism. That is simply a testament to it's incapability to function tandem to humanity.
    I'm assuming by "There never been and is currently" you mean "there is currently." At least, that's what the rest of your claim seems to support. If so, then you may wish to look at the difference between a nominal claim and a real claim. A nominal claim is (in short) name-only. So someone saying they're from New York when they've lived there for a month would be nominally true. Likewise, current communist states are nominally so. After all, China has a stock market so how could you claim it to be communist? You can't, unless you do so nominally. Does that make sense?
    If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
    - Karl Marx
  26. #20
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,151
    Rep Power 164

    Default

    OP, so if it was the state in the abstract that enabled new world slavery, and therefore you don’t think it’s capitalism, has capitalism ever existed in the US?

    Wasn’t it the post civil war state that cleared the American Indians for the railroads and therefore all US industry?

    So non-violent and non-coercive capitalism is an ideal that has never existed despite over a century of rule by capitalists?

Similar Threads

  1. Communism: What Would the Utopia Look Like?
    By The_Marxie_Physicist in forum Learning
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 6th September 2015, 14:07
  2. Capitalism is economically invalid, period.
    By Lowtech in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 22nd September 2013, 10:32
  3. Replies: 134
    Last Post: 28th June 2012, 13:47
  4. How would Anarchy ever even work?
    By safeduck in forum Learning
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: 28th November 2011, 21:00

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts