Thread: How is Communism ethical?

Results 61 to 65 of 65

  1. #61
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,067
    Rep Power 64

    Default


    How many times do I have to repeat myself? Seriously, tell me. How many times do you want me to say it? I'll put it in bold so you don't miss it this time...

    I don't support State violence


    Okay, thanks for the clarification, ALC. I'm still adjusting to your particular political orientation, so just use the same kind of reminder if I get any of your positions incorrectly in the future.

    That said, though, it *is* your positions that I look at, so if you're going to disavow all state-type functions it will help that position of yours if you explicitly critique *right*-wing functions, such as warfare, corporate welfare, etc. My concern is that you tend to focus on critiquing the more *left*-wing aspects of the state, effectively making you into more of a *conservative*, rather than the 'libertarian' that you claim to be.


    ---



    You're right... the political policy of Adolf Hitler had nothing to do with his lifestyle or personality; the political policy of Pol Pot had nothing to do with his lifestyle or personality; the same goes for Donald Trump? Of course there is an inextricable link between one's political ideology and their personality and lifestyle.


    I'm not going to defend these dictators, of course, but one's lifestyle or personality is not *nearly* as significant to others, and to society as a whole, as their *policies*. That's because *everyone* has a 'lifestyle' of some sort, but *not everyone* has official state-sanctioned *power*, as over determining the policies of government that affect millions and billions around the globe.


    I don't see how it matters if you have 'state-sanctioned power' or not. this makes no difference to the fact that one's lifestyle and personality can reflect and will influence their political policies.

    No, this is a myopic diversion, and I maintain that looking at one's lifestyle is effectively *politicizing* that lifestyle, when one may not necessarily be politicizing their lifestyle *themselves* -- what's of immeasureably more significance is one's relation to the means of mass industrial production, because those who *don't* have any control over social production -- through wealth ownership in the current capitalist society -- do *not* have any power except in concert with the mass of other working-class people like themselves / ourselves. Those who *do* have capital owenrship *do* have class-based power, as over some aspects of social production, and are *not* oppressed or exploited by class society.


    ---



    Allow me to clarify -- there would be a *transitional* period, the time of a mass-based uprising against class rule, through to the complete disempowerment of rule based on ownership of capital. This is usually termed 'socialism', then leading into a permanent state of humanity as fully globally self-collectivized, or 'communism'.

    I suggest the 'put counterrevolutionaries in skyscrapers' strategy for the period of the 'socialism' *transitional* time, as evidenced from the last line of that proposal (at post #10):


    Therefor it is violent, unethical and tyrannical. Listen to what you're saying... you want to lock people up for their thoughts.

    No, you've used this accusation before, and I've refuted it -- the working class has an already-existing collective *interest* in overthrowing the class elites that currently exploit and oppress it / us.

    Personally I'd *like* to pre-emptively ferret out 'thoughtcrime', as you're describing, among those of the (privileged) bourgeoisie, but I don't think this would be realistic. I think it would actually require some kind of counterrevolutionary *action* on the part of those who oppose proletarian revolution, to enable effective working-class-defensive action against them, as already described.

    Sure, it *could* be violent, but it wouldn't be unethical *or* tyrannical, because of the present state of exploitation and oppression of the working class through the wages system. (Likewise consider if *slaves* of the past would be justified in killing their slavemasters, because of the systemic abuse of them by those slaveowners.)



    Would you give to a charity with a proven track record of efficiency in achieving their goals, or one that is inconsistent and poorly managed? This is the premise upon which charity could be applied to the market to establish a voluntary collective system for social good. The welfare state isn't just 'underfunded', its 'safety net' is cast too broadly to widen the range of State dependence, and as it has no accountability, the pooled taxation can be spend where the State desires it. All the welfare state is, is an attempt at lessening the symptoms of State intervention into the market in the first place It's a self feeding cycle. of course, you argue that charity does the same thing for the inevitable 'market failures', only, the State and the Welfare State are inextricably connected and so out of self-interest create more dependency, whereas, a charity is simply a body within the market; it does not have political power to artificially preserve itself.

    You continue to tout the market / private-sector as being a better vehicle for addressing unmet human need, when, *again*, there's no guarantee that its funding / 'supply' will be adequate for meeting those outstanding empirical needs -- you're showing yourself to be a *propagandist*, rather than a problem-solver.

    The advantage with the 'public' / state vehicle is that it *does* have a tax-funded *budget*, rather than relying on the fluctuations and vicissitudes of charity-type market participation. It's unfortunate that the social-service-oriented portion of the state is chronically *underfunded*, but that doesn't mean that it should automatically be discarded, in favor of the private sector and its extra cost of *profit-making* (privatization).

    Your conclusion of the welfare state 'creating more dependency' is absolutely *spurious* -- you don't care to benchmark or otherwise measure current unmet human need, so you can't assert *conclusions* about whether that need is being sufficiently supplied-to by the welfare state, because you're not even *attempting* to measure it in the first place.



    There is inevitably going to be 'market failures' in any system (despite your belief in the infallibility of communism). The State is the institution that create barriers in the marketability of people's labour. If a person is unskilled and not very productive, and an employer is compelled by the State to pay them more than their value, then that person is going to be excluded. And let's say that person is black or gay, and unskilled, maybe the employer doesn't want to take the risk of hiring them encase they receive a lawsuit facilitated by State 'equality' Laws. Of course, with some, it cannot be attributed to any institution, some people fall on hard times, or are simply unlucky in life (hence why charity should be more exalted than the welfare state).

    Your political estimations are all based on a model of atomized individuals -- this is an artificially-minimized scale of examination that doesn't reflect larger patterns of systemic unemployment, poverty, exploitation, oppression. In other words if 99.999999999% of the whole population was employed and only a handful out of the population somehow remained stubbornly *unemployed*, then we could talk about individual abberations, but that's not the actual case -- unemployment and poverty among those of the working class always exists on a *mass* basis, so this isn't about individual-scale 'hard times' or being 'unlucky in life'.

    I won't *reject* charity as a practice, but it's nowhere near as *robust* and *secular* as government-based social services that are backed up by tax receipts, though they could certainly be much *improved*.


    ---



    *No one* wants to live in a collectivized hellhole -- and that's not the intention of revolutionaries anyway. You're using a Stalinistic strawman just because the events of the 20th century happened to favor that kind of strongman formulation for the geographically constrained, nationally-isolated imploded revolution in Russia.


    You do not care what people want; only how to satisfy your ideology. Because you do not like the system (for whatever reason: guilt, envy, greed...?) you selfishly want to force your way onto everyone else whether they like it or not.

    No -- incorrect. You're making it sound like I *invented* communism, when the interests at-stake are far larger than just me myself. A worldwide proletarian revolution would have to be a mass action of millions and billions, and it wouldn't be up to me because it wouldn't be aiming at producing another constrained Stalinistic nation-state with a standing hierarchy of leadership -- it would be *collectivist*, by the working class itself.



    You claim I am using a 'Stalinistic strawman' yet I am only reflecting what you are telling me. Such as that you want to imprison people for their thoughts being the most major concern, then of course i am inferring from the general authoritarian attitude of left wing politics and it's violence in extreme groups like ANTIFA, that you admit support for.

    No, I don't think it would be practical to detain counterrevolutionaries on the basis of their ideas alone -- they would have to proactively physically *interfere* with the proletarian revolution for them to be considered formally 'counterrevolutionary', and dealt with commensurately.

    Your purported 'authoritarian' label is only possible because currently the working class has *insufficient* power in society as it is today, so exercising collective power, as through revolution, would *appear* 'authoritarian' in comparison -- a better description is that the world's working class would finally be able to carry out its own best collective interests, as against the bourgeois ruling class.



    Sure, the fact that blacks disproportionately commit more violent crime than any other demographic in the USA is just 'violent hysterics'. It's a fact, and it's directly linked to the subordination of the father figure in black families caused by the mass intrusion of the welfare state into poorer black communities. Now that's institutional racism!

    No, this isn't accurate because you're only addressing blacks *in a vacuum*, devoid of larger social dynamics like the nation-state, and removed from history, like the historical legacy of oppression and exploitation through the institution of slavery in the past, and prisons today. Your patriarchal position is looking at societal *symptoms* instead of the independent-variable of systematic, specialized exploitation and oppression of blacks going back to pre-U.S., colonial times.
  2. #62
    Join Date Dec 2016
    Posts 12
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    I want to make a brief intervention because I think the very continuation of this conversation represents a significant strategic error for Communists. Aside from the fact that A Libertarian Capitalist’s views are so utterly appalling as to be unworthy of serious rebuttal, he has set up his criticism of Communism in such terms as to eliminate the very possibility of the debate’s discursive resolution. Thus, he asks us how we could ‘ethically justify’ using state institutions to confiscate certain forms of private property. Since, however, he does not acknowledge the existence of systemic capitalist exploitation, and thus the very ailment that motivates Communist transformation of society, he insists that what we must be able to show him is that Communist revolution is justifiable for reasons precisely other than the ones we actually invoke. Clearly, we, who are Communists, cannot justify state coercion thus conceived to him, who is so emphatically not a Communist. To put the same point in more concrete terms: the coercive measures that A Libertarian Capitalist is criticizing are only necessary when and to the extent that people very much like A Libertarian Capitalist insist on their ‘property rights’, which means that we can only satisfy the terms of his criticisms by convincing him that nothing more than his own insistence on his own property rights justifies the coercive measures a revolutionary state would have to take against him.

    More broadly, I think it is worth noting that the deployment against Communism of the right libertarian ideology of free association through exchange in the marketplace usually takes on this perverse logic, and usually therefore merits declining to continue dialogue. This ideology has no positive content because it is defined purely negatively in the first place, as concerning whatever isn’t state-sanctioned violence. Through a rhetorically ingenious but substantively empty flourish, it fetishizes as an end whatever contradicts our means, which is to say that it cynically disguises contempt for the rabble as humanitarian concern for its well-being. Nor does the shortness I am preaching reflect some alleged leftwing preference for dirty deeds over words. When the self-satisfied ‘entrepreneurial’ commands a homeless person to get a job, he doesn’t exactly open a ‘dialogue’: he knows he doesn’t need to add an ‘or else’ clause because the rest of that homeless person’s life functions perfectly well in its place. But that is the ‘consensual contract’ actually ‘on offer’ in the marketplace.

    Were A Libertarian Capitalist instead to criticize the policy of abolishing private property on its own terms, he would then take on the burden of demonstrating that he knows how to use productive property better than his fellow human beings. Only in such a hypothetical case can there be a genuine debate. Until then, our task is not at all to assure A Libertarian Capitalist that a socialist property regime can be achieved in ways less disruptive than those actually attempted in the twentieth century, but on the contrary to confirm his fear that in a revolution he would have many things to lose, and that chains are not among them.
  3. The Following User Says Thank You to New Guard For This Useful Post:


  4. #63
    Join Date Jan 2018
    Posts 24
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Jimmie Higgins


    The welfare state has destroyed the importance of independence and responsibility amongst black culture, leading to high rate of single motherhood, thus resulting in a lack of discipline among male youths. State schooling fails them (and is not helped by the fact that it is categorically more difficult to educate a male from a single parent family). Prior to the welfare system for black communities that began in the 1960's, single motherhood was only around 7%... it's now at around over 70%. There is no doubt a major causal link there.
    I was simply using the Great Society scheme as an example of the State's failure to patch up it's own effects. Redlining is just another example of what happens when you let the State do what it wants in the economy. In no way would I infer from this historical example that more State power is required to fix it... that's counter-intuitive to my whole position.


    ckaihatsu

    Okay, thanks for the clarification, ALC. I'm still adjusting to your particular political orientation, so just use the same kind of reminder if I get any of your positions incorrectly in the future.
    That's okay bud. It's just, you keep asking me why i'm not denouncing State this and State that...

    No, this is a myopic diversion, and I maintain that looking at one's lifestyle is effectively *politicizing* that lifestyle, when one may not necessarily be politicizing their lifestyle *themselves* -
    I'm not saying that one's lifestyle is inherently a manifestation of one's own political views. I'm saying they're inextricably linked.

    - what's of immeasureably more significance is one's relation to the means of mass industrial production, because those who *don't* have any control over social production -- through wealth ownership in the current capitalist society -- do *not* have any power except in concert with the mass of other working-class people like themselves / ourselves. Those who *do* have capital owenrship *do* have class-based power, as over some aspects of social production, and are *not* oppressed or exploited by class society.
    I do not believe wage labour is exploitative or oppressive when it is a voluntary relationship. Outside of the monetary aspect of having a job, one can profit from being in employment, not only in marketing his labour, but in acquiring more marketable skills and experience, thus increasing their overall labour value (thus profiting), especially if that person takes initiative. This may appear very anecdotal, but there are many people I know in my own life who have attained social mobility through opportunities offered only from the experience gained from employment. If the State makes the barriers to entry of employment higher (i.e. minimum wage laws), then it only hurts unskilled labourers whose opportunities to raise their labour marketability are only limited. Without the State, Capitalism is not an oligarchy. How does communism account for social mobility? Being the 'classless society' I assume ambition and initiative is a negative trait, deincentivised? Where does the dominance hierarchy occur (because it will occur somewhere)?

    No, you've used this accusation before, and I've refuted it -- the working class has an already-existing collective *interest* in overthrowing the class elites that currently exploit and oppress it / us.

    Personally I'd *like* to pre-emptively ferret out 'thoughtcrime', as you're describing, among those of the (privileged) bourgeoisie, but I don't think this would be realistic. I think it would actually require some kind of counterrevolutionary *action* on the part of those who oppose proletarian revolution, to enable effective working-class-defensive action against them, as already described.

    Sure, it *could* be violent, but it wouldn't be unethical *or* tyrannical, because of the present state of exploitation and oppression of the working class through the wages system. (Likewise consider if *slaves* of the past would be justified in killing their slavemasters, because of the systemic abuse of them by those slaveowners.)
    You're projecting your own interests as if they represent that of an entire group identity. You do understand that not every working class individual is a collectivist ideologue, and that in the event of a revolution there would undoubtedly be working class people trying to protect their hard earned property and wouldn't consent to your utopia. You are using the plight of the working class as the guise to enforce your ideology. You say it "could" be violent... tell me, what happens if someone does not consent to give up their property rights (which there will be)? Do you just let them be? No, you must use violent.

    p.s. conflating the position of an employee to a slave is not compatible on ethical grounds. One is voluntary, the other is not.

    You continue to tout the market / private-sector as being a better vehicle for addressing unmet human need, when, *again*, there's no guarantee that its funding / 'supply' will be adequate for meeting those outstanding empirical needs -- you're showing yourself to be a *propagandist*, rather than a problem-solver.

    The advantage with the 'public' / state vehicle is that it *does* have a tax-funded *budget*, rather than relying on the fluctuations and vicissitudes of charity-type market participation. It's unfortunate that the social-service-oriented portion of the state is chronically *underfunded*, but that doesn't mean that it should automatically be discarded, in favor of the private sector and its extra cost of *profit-making* (privatization).

    Your conclusion of the welfare state 'creating more dependency' is absolutely *spurious* -- you don't care to benchmark or otherwise measure current unmet human need, so you can't assert *conclusions* about whether that need is being sufficiently supplied-to by the welfare state, because you're not even *attempting* to measure it in the first place.
    Firstly, you can't "guarantee" anything anyway. It's a matter of ethics. Stealing someone's money with the threat of violence (taxation) essentially making them into retroactive slaves, to give it to others (including the politicians and corporations who fill their pockets on the way to the actual person in need) is fundamentally immoral. People care about the poor, the mere existence of the welfare state in democratic society is a testament to that. This is not propaganda, this is my opinion on what is reality.

    You are fooling yourself by believing that the private sector has an "extra cost" due to the profit motive. The profit motive minimises cost by maximising efficiency... the State does the polar opposite. Charities could be merited by what percentage of the cut is taken privately, etc. Your defence of the State here is quite strong, which reflect the idea that you do not believe people are capable of voluntarily contributing to social good without the use of violence. In thins case, how do you propose Communism would function in the denial of voluntary collective action?

    your political estimations are all based on a model of atomized individuals -- this is an artificially-minimized scale of examination that doesn't reflect larger patterns of systemic unemployment, poverty, exploitation, oppression. In other words if 99.999999999% of the whole population was employed and only a handful out of the population somehow remained stubbornly *unemployed*, then we could talk about individual abberations, but that's not the actual case -- unemployment and poverty among those of the working class always exists on a *mass* basis, so this isn't about individual-scale 'hard times' or being 'unlucky in life'.

    I won't *reject* charity as a practice, but it's nowhere near as *robust* and *secular* as government-based social services that are backed up by tax receipts, though they could certainly be much *improved*.
    Unemployment isn't a static observation. it can be easy to judge statistics as such, but they are only a snapshot of reality. It is rare that someone will be unemployed forever. I believe that unemployment in the USA has averaged around 5% with peaks and troughs, but people move in and out of employment status all the time; in and out of poverty; in and out of wealth. The market isn't a static picture.

    Secondly, what evidence do you have that the private sector is "nowhere near as robust and secular" as State ran institutions? Everything the State does is tenfold in cost, slow, inefficient and not very receptive to innovation. Schools, Hospitals, roads... could all be achieved more efficiently and on a foundation of voluntarism by the market. The fundamental fact that the State compels you hand your children over into indoctrination centres for 6-7 hours a day, sending most away with few real-world skills, is tyrannical altogether.

    No -- incorrect. You're making it sound like I *invented* communism, when the interests at-stake are far larger than just me myself. A worldwide proletarian revolution would have to be a mass action of millions and billions, and it wouldn't be up to me because it wouldn't be aiming at producing another constrained Stalinistic nation-state with a standing hierarchy of leadership -- it would be *collectivist*, by the working class itself.
    That's great, but if don't wanna join in, you'll lock me up.

    No, I don't think it would be practical to detain counterrevolutionaries on the basis of their ideas alone -- they would have to proactively physically *interfere* with the proletarian revolution for them to be considered formally 'counterrevolutionary', and dealt with commensurately.
    Be honest with yourself. Call it what it is... you're locking people up for their thoughts because you know Communism cannot work without total political homogenisation. Which is precisely why every attempted Communist regimes turns to despotism.


    New Guard, hey.

    I want to make a brief intervention because I think the very continuation of this conversation represents a significant strategic error for Communists. Aside from the fact that A Libertarian Capitalist’s views are so utterly appalling as to be unworthy of serious rebuttal, he has set up his criticism of Communism in such terms as to eliminate the very possibility of the debate’s discursive resolution
    It's seems typical of a Communist to be opposing diverse political discussion. What have I said that is truly "utterly appalling" besides the fact that my views don't align with yours? The only message I've tried to get across is that (A) Statism is antithetical to Capitalism from an ethical standpoint, and (B) I do not believe that Communism is ethical. I've supported the free market in this discussion, but besides attempting to critique, I'm not sure what has been "utterly appealing". I've even been called "subhuman", yet I am not on the side of locking people up.

    Since, however, he does not acknowledge the existence of systemic capitalist exploitation, and thus the very ailment that motivates Communist transformation of society, he insists that what we must be able to show him is that Communist revolution is justifiable for reasons precisely other than the ones we actually invoke.
    Yes, i do not believe the reasons you invoke are valid. They're romanticisations, and as an ideology, it's destructive.

    which is to say that it cynically disguises contempt for the rabble as humanitarian concern for its well-being
    I'm not the one talking about the working class like they're a homogeneous and powerless group. What? So you think I actually just hate the working class? That would make me quite the hypocrite. The reality is, you simply violently hate the rich, under the guise of empathy for the working class.

    Were A Libertarian Capitalist instead to criticize the policy of abolishing private property on its own terms, he would then take on the burden of demonstrating that he knows how to use productive property better than his fellow human beings.
    The burden of proof is not on me my friend. Capitalism already has and still is lifting people out of poverty, providing better and better living standards across the world. What has Communism ever done for anyone but shove them in the mud? How you can still identify with such a system is astonishing.. at least the postmodernists try to hide their affiliation.

    ....

    but on the contrary to confirm his fear that in a revolution he would have many things to lose, and that chains are not among them.
    ...what's that supposed to mean? You're right, it's all about 'Liberation'...
  5. #64
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,063
    Rep Power 164

    Default

    I want to make a brief intervention because I think the very continuation of this conversation represents a significant strategic error for Communists.
    Nah, itís low stakes. A waste of time? Sure... but then again, itís the internet and thatís what itís there for.
  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Jimmie Higgins For This Useful Post:


  7. #65
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,067
    Rep Power 64

    Default




    ckaihatsu



    That's okay bud. It's just, you keep asking me why i'm not denouncing State this and State that...

    Yeah, it's a valid observation -- again, if you're limiting your critique / dismissiveness of the state to only its *left-wing* aspects (welfare state, regulations on business, etc.) then you're not being anti-state in an unbiased way -- rather you're *biased* by staying silent about the state's *right-wing* functions, like warfare and corporate welfare. And, economically, by being pro-markets you're *apolitical* at best since you don't think that the state should "interfere" in 'pure' market functioning.



    I'm not saying that one's lifestyle is inherently a manifestation of one's own political views. I'm saying they're inextricably linked.

    I already addressed this -- it's a *superfluous* concern because you're no longer in the realm of politics itself. You sound like you just read the tabloids and that you're more personally interested with political personages' lifestyles, and not the actual *policies* themselves (like the role of the state).

    Anyone who stays on this road just winds up confusing lifestyle with politics *altogether* -- they're known as 'lifestylists'. Here's that scale-indexed diagram again:


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






    ---



    I do not believe wage labour is exploitative or oppressive when it is a voluntary relationship.

    You don't have to 'believe' it, it just happens to be true -- the employer sells the products of wage labor for more than he or she pays for the labor itself. I'm sure you recognize *this* description of reality even if you won't admit it.



    Outside of the monetary aspect of having a job, one can profit from being in employment, not only in marketing his labour, but in acquiring more marketable skills and experience, thus increasing their overall labour value (thus profiting),

    Labor doesn't *profit* from selling its labor-power, because there's no capital involved -- only *capital* investments are rewarded with the receiving of surplus labor value. Labor is simply a *commodity* under capitalism and is treated as such, even though they / we happen to be flesh-and-blood human beings as well.

    You're wantonly stripping these terms of their real meanings, in order to use them for your continued propaganda campaign.



    especially if that person takes initiative. This may appear very anecdotal, but there are many people I know in my own life who have attained social mobility through opportunities offered only from the experience gained from employment.

    Would you offer this same advice to someone who owned significant amounts of capital -- ? Like, 'Ditch that capital and market your skills and experience to get social mobility through employment' -- ?

    Of course not, because capital / disposable income is the 'gold standard' under capitalist economics.

    You're a feudal-like ideologue / propagandist telling the dispossessed class how you want it to behave.



    If the State makes the barriers to entry of employment higher (i.e. minimum wage laws), then it only hurts unskilled labourers whose opportunities to raise their labour marketability are only limited.

    You're just being blithely dismissive on this point, without providing any evidence / empirical data, and you're expecting hard-left-wingers to just *believe* you....

    Similarly, but conversely, I could just say that employers would gladly pay the higher wages required by a minimum-wage or living-wage law, and would simply get on with business, as if the price of wholesale pickles went up by 20% or something.

    Another way of looking at this is 'Why should *labor* give up wages for the purported sake of increased marketability -- ? Why not just make the government *raise the floor* by either requiring higher wages by law, or by *subsidizing* labor through public housing, public utilities, free food, free education, etc. -- ? Such improved social services would help to make received wages have more relative purchasing power.

    You continue to *pretend* that you're on the side of labor, when in fact you just throw labor's interests into the black-hole of the market mechanism, which inherently benefits those who own and use capital, because the market inherently *exploits* labor-power, meaning workers.



    Without the State, Capitalism is not an oligarchy.

    Holy shit -- do you drink your own Kool-Aid -- ??

    Do you really think an entrenched capitalist oligarchy would really give up its super-privileges by abandoning its own state apparatus -- ?

    If so, why are you bothering with the revolutionary left -- ? You should be out *there*, burning up shoe leather to get in front of *plutocrats* to try to convince them to give up their own state. (It would make for a really good 'reality' TV show -- admit it.) (grin)



    How does communism account for social mobility? Being the 'classless society' I assume ambition and initiative is a negative trait, deincentivised? Where does the dominance hierarchy occur (because it will occur somewhere)?

    No, you're incorrect, because you think that human nature is 'fixed' somehow and that people will *always* tend toward hierarchical formations for society. A *collective* society *would* have a *collective* interest in *automating* all social production as much as possible -- hopefully entirely -- so that *no one* would have to do *anything* (maybe everything would be 3D-printed, at the consumer's whim).

    'Social mobility' would be much more interesting once everyone could be guaranteed a decent life and living, from cradle to grave -- it would be absolutely *uncoerced*:



    [S]ocialism itself will be of value simply because it will lead to Individualism.

    Socialism, Communism, or whatever one chooses to call it, by converting private property into public wealth, and substituting co-operation for competition, will restore society to its proper condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and insure the material well-being of each member of the community. It will, in fact, give Life its proper basis and its proper environment. But for the full development of Life to its highest mode of perfection, something more is needed. What is needed is Individualism. If the Socialism is Authoritarian; if there are Governments armed with economic power as they are now with political power; if, in a word, we are to have Industrial Tyrannies, then the last state of man will be worse than the first. At present, in consequence of the existence of private property, a great many people are enabled to develop a certain very limited amount of Individualism. They are either under no necessity to work for their living, or are enabled to choose the sphere of activity that is really congenial to them, and gives them pleasure. These are the poets, the philosophers, the men of science, the men of culture Ė in a word, the real men, the men who have realised themselves, and in whom all Humanity gains a partial realisation. Upon the other hand, there are a great many people who, having no private property of their own, and being always on the brink of sheer starvation, are compelled to do the work of beasts of burden, to do work that is quite uncongenial to them, and to which they are forced by the peremptory, unreasonable, degrading Tyranny of want. These are the poor, and amongst them there is no grace of manner, or charm of speech, or civilisation, or culture, or refinement in pleasures, or joy of life. From their collective force Humanity gains much in material prosperity. But it is only the material result that it gains, and the man who is poor is in himself absolutely of no importance. He is merely the infinitesimal atom of a force that, so far from regarding him, crushes him: indeed, prefers him crushed, as in that case he is far more obedient.

    ---



    You're projecting your own interests as if they represent that of an entire group identity.

    Incorrect. My *personal* interests are congruent with those of the greater working class, since I'm not independently wealthy. It's not about some subjective 'identity', it's about objective *interests*, which are mutually exclusive from that of the entire bourgeois ruling class.

    A working class revolution would benefit *me*, along with the rest of humanity, because it would *collectivize* all social production under the collective control of the world's proletariat. I would undoubtedly be able to access *far more* material means for myself under successful collective control than I can today with whatever pocket money I may happen to have. Also I just don't like the idea that the compensation I receive from my efforts in the market primarily benefit the bosses, of whatever magnitude -- private profit-making is always a *cost* in the equation / process of cashflow, like the paying of bribes to ownership for its relenting to participate in the societal-productive process (business, hiring labor, etc.).



    You do understand that not every working class individual is a collectivist ideologue,

    Yeah, that just means that they're not actively *conscious* of their material role in society -- collectivism would cut out the need for that 'bribe' of profits to private property, which would be a vast *improvement* for the collective interests of all of those who work.



    and that in the event of a revolution there would undoubtedly be working class people trying to protect their hard earned property and wouldn't consent to your utopia. You are using the plight of the working class as the guise to enforce your ideology.

    You seem to think that working people are somehow *better off* being exploited by capital and oppressed by the capitalist state.

    As an aside -- nothing to concern *you* -- I don't think that the post-capitalist practice of 'personal property' would necessarily be 'easy' and 'neat', but that's another, *internal* discussion among revolutionaries.

    I *do* think that revolutionary practices *should* be spelled-out as much as possible in-advance, like anything else, so that everyone's 'on-the-same-page'. I, as a vanguardist revolutionary, have no special *personal* interests that would be any different from the next working-class person.



    You say it "could" be violent... tell me, what happens if someone does not consent to give up their property rights (which there will be)? Do you just let them be? No, you must use violent.

    You're missing the whole point -- violence is currently being used *now* against those of the working class, particularly against people of color by the police, and against people of color in other countries by the U.S. military. It's *these* kinds of violence that can be *stopped* by the working class' self-emancipation on a *class* basis, by whatever means.



    p.s. conflating the position of an employee to a slave is not compatible on ethical grounds. One is voluntary, the other is not.

    If a worker doesn't actively work for a wage they will not have the money to buy the necessities of life and living -- this is implicit *coercion*, and is not so different from outright chattel slavery in terms of disempowerment.



    Firstly, you can't "guarantee" anything anyway.

    No, I actually *agree* with you on this, at a face-value level -- I'm not *defending* or *apologizing* for the capitalist state in any principled way. It's just that the government can potentially provide a more-*consistent* application of social services than the private sector can, due to its centralization, and monolithic policy implementation.



    It's a matter of ethics. Stealing someone's money with the threat of violence (taxation) essentially making them into retroactive slaves, to give it to others (including the politicians and corporations who fill their pockets on the way to the actual person in need) is fundamentally immoral.

    You're not addressing *content*, though -- and this is where your politics falls short because you're not suggesting anything substantively *different*. Those who are poor are *priced-out* of market participation, and so the government's social services are at least *something* to fill-in the gaps, if ultimately insufficient.



    People care about the poor, the mere existence of the welfare state in democratic society is a testament to that. This is not propaganda, this is my opinion on what is reality.

    Are you suggesting *otherwise* -- ? Should people *not* look out for others who are human beings like themselves -- ?



    You are fooling yourself by believing that the private sector has an "extra cost" due to the profit motive. The profit motive minimises cost by maximising efficiency... the State does the polar opposite.

    You can't compare the public sector to the private sector, regarding the *breadth* of coverage, though -- this is why, for example, health care should be *nationalized*, into a single-payer format. The advantage of government is that it only requires a *single* administration, while the private sector is well-known for profiteering, balkanization / fragmentation, and shutting-out those who can't afford its commodities.



    Charities could be merited by what percentage of the cut is taken privately, etc. Your defence of the State here is quite strong, which reflect the idea that you do not believe people are capable of voluntarily contributing to social good without the use of violence. In thins case, how do you propose Communism would function in the denial of voluntary collective action?

    Social services, by government or charities, still has to deal with the overall *commodification* of such -- and that's due to the overall social environment of *capitalism*. So I'm not arguing on principle for any kind of *reformism* in either direction, because tinkering with the system cannot *resolve* the problem of either economic- and/or political-commodification (which bureaucratic faction should prevail, etc.).

    My whole framework model of 'labor credits' (post #36) addresses this potential problematic of 'denial of voluntary collective action' by providing a gradient-fallback to a quasi-commodification of liberated-labor *itself*, on a per-item basis. In other words, 'labor credits' can be budgeted and paid-forward to incoming liberated laborers, to specify participation per-person, and by duration of pre-planned work roles (in hours).

    Here's a quick, handy sample scenario from a past thread:



    [If] simple basics like ham and yogurt couldn't be readily produced by the communistic gift economy, and were 'scarce' in relation to actual mass demand, they *would* be considered 'luxury goods' in economic terms, and would be *discretionary* in terms of public consumption.

    Such a situation would *encourage* liberated-labor -- such as it would be -- to 'step up' to supply its labor for the production of ham and yogurt, because the scarcity and mass demand would encourage others to put in their own labor to earn labor credits, to provide increasing rates of labor credits to those who would be able to produce the much-demanded ham and yogurt. (Note that the ham and yogurt goods themselves would never be 'bought' or 'sold', because the labor credits are only used in regard to labor-*hours* worked, and *not* for exchangeability with any goods, because that would be commodity production.)

    This kind of liberated-production assumes that the means of production have been *liberated* and collectivized, so there wouldn't be any need for any kind of finance or capital-based 'ownership' there.
    https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads...36#post2782636


    ---



    Your political estimations are all based on a model of atomized individuals -- this is an artificially-minimized scale of examination that doesn't reflect larger patterns of systemic unemployment, poverty, exploitation, oppression. In other words if 99.999999999% of the whole population was employed and only a handful out of the population somehow remained stubbornly *unemployed*, then we could talk about individual abberations, but that's not the actual case -- unemployment and poverty among those of the working class always exists on a *mass* basis, so this isn't about individual-scale 'hard times' or being 'unlucky in life'.

    I won't *reject* charity as a practice, but it's nowhere near as *robust* and *secular* as government-based social services that are backed up by tax receipts, though they could certainly be much *improved*.


    Unemployment isn't a static observation. it can be easy to judge statistics as such, but they are only a snapshot of reality. It is rare that someone will be unemployed forever. I believe that unemployment in the USA has averaged around 5% with peaks and troughs, but people move in and out of employment status all the time; in and out of poverty; in and out of wealth. The market isn't a static picture.

    Secondly, what evidence do you have that the private sector is "nowhere near as robust and secular" as State ran institutions? Everything the State does is tenfold in cost, slow, inefficient and not very receptive to innovation. Schools, Hospitals, roads... could all be achieved more efficiently and on a foundation of voluntarism by the market. The fundamental fact that the State compels you hand your children over into indoctrination centres for 6-7 hours a day, sending most away with few real-world skills, is tyrannical altogether.

    I'm not going to position myself as 'pro-capitalist-government', because both private and public sectors are always going to be *insufficient* in responding to unmet human need, otherwise it would have been done by now. But the state *is* incrementally better at providing a centralized, consistent level of social services than the patchwork private sector.


    ---



    No -- incorrect. You're making it sound like I *invented* communism, when the interests at-stake are far larger than just me myself. A worldwide proletarian revolution would have to be a mass action of millions and billions, and it wouldn't be up to me because it wouldn't be aiming at producing another constrained Stalinistic nation-state with a standing hierarchy of leadership -- it would be *collectivist*, by the working class itself.


    That's great, but if don't wanna join in, you'll lock me up.

    Since it would be *collectivist*, it wouldn't be *me*, specifically -- it would be a potential resulting policy from the prevailing political sentiment of active, conscious revolutionaries.


    ---



    No, I don't think it would be practical to detain counterrevolutionaries on the basis of their ideas alone -- they would have to proactively physically *interfere* with the proletarian revolution for them to be considered formally 'counterrevolutionary', and dealt with commensurately.


    Be honest with yourself. Call it what it is... you're locking people up for their thoughts because you know Communism cannot work without total political homogenisation. Which is precisely why every attempted Communist regimes turns to despotism.

    No, historical incidents are not indicative of future implementations. We're still working it out here -- that's what RevLeft is good for.

    I *personally* don't think that a proletarian revolution should direct resources towards punishing people for professed ideas -- just play it safe and don't *interfere* and I would think you'd be fine.

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