Results 1 to 20 of 27
Simple enough question really.
Most communists and many anarchists believe that private property will be out the window either by force or because it becomes unnecessary post-revolution.
Anyone think it possible?
Adiel: How can you defend a country where 5 percent of the people control 95 percent of the wealth?
Lisa: I'm defending a country where people can think and act and worship any way they want!
Adiel: Cannot!
Lisa: Can to!
Adiel: Cannot!
Lisa: Can to!
Homer: Please, please, kids; stop fighting. Maybe Lisa is right about America being the land of opportunity, maybe Adiel has a point about the machinery of capitalism being oiled with the blood of the workers.
Is it compatibale with socialism? Of course. But thats a very wide ranging "term". Technically New Labour are Democatic Socialist.
Compatibal with marxism - of course not.
In your hypothetical post communist revolution - no, private property will be abolished (along with parties ;P).
Captain Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war two great super-armies developed. Us, the Russians and the French on one side, Germany and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea being that each army would act as the other's deterrent. That way, there could never be a war.
Private Baldrick: Except, this is sort of a war, isn't it?
Captain Blackadder: That's right. There was one tiny flaw in the plan.
Lieutenant George: O, what was that?
Captain Blackadder: It was bollocks.
I think people are still going to own their houses,at least!I'd say micro-private property (like a house,or a car)are compatible with communism.With socialism i think the thesis of private property is even "better".
<span style=\'color:red\'>If voting changed anything,they'd make it illegal.</span>
<span style=\'color:red\'>If I can't dance, it's not my revolution!
If I can't dance, I don't want your revolution!
If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution!</span>
<span style=\'color:red\'>"The proletarians of the world have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of all countries: Unite!"</span>
no...no not at all
in a communist socitey their will and should not be any owner ship of cars or houses, come on on now, kat think.
their will be no private ownership except for maybe a tooth brush
You can't learn to swim in a library.
no,come on.And the cars?Whose will they belong?to everybody or to the government?
<span style=\'color:red\'>If voting changed anything,they'd make it illegal.</span>
<span style=\'color:red\'>If I can't dance, it's not my revolution!
If I can't dance, I don't want your revolution!
If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution!</span>
<span style=\'color:red\'>"The proletarians of the world have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of all countries: Unite!"</span>
In Marxism, there is a difference between personal property and private property.
Private property means private property of the means of production. Factories etc.
Personal property means toothbrushes, backpacks and so on.
Yes, there will be personal property. No, there will not be private property.
"A slave-owner who through cunning and violence shackles a slave in chains,
and a slave who through cunning or violence breaks the chains—
Let not the contemptible eunuchs tell us that they are equals before a court of morality!"
-Leon Trotsky
the issue isnt whether it will or wont, but rather should it, considering issues such as incentive, wealth distribution.
whats your ideal situation?
<span style=\'color:red\'>www.marxist.com Committee for a Marxist International</span>
<span style=\'color:red\'>Proleteriat of the world unite! We have nothing to lose but our chains!</span>
<span style=\'color:red\'>HandsOffVenezuela in solidarity with the Venezuelan workers and the Venezuelan Revolution</span>
Those who believe the labels without opening the package are always doomed to political futility.
"Technically" Bill Gates and I are "equal before the law".
-----------------------------------------------
I rather doubt that cars and houses will be "owned" in a communist society...the chances are you will be granted use of them until you no longer need them and then someone else will have the use of them.
"Use" is the key criterion of communist society...if you're not using it, do you really need it?
The Redstar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas
The abolishment of private PROPERTY does not have anything to do with private POSSESSIONS.Originally posted by glory@Jun 30 2004, 10:41 PM
no...no not at all
in a communist socitey their will and should not be any owner ship of cars or houses, come on on now, kat think.
their will be no private ownership except for maybe a tooth brush
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein
People should always be able to have exclusive use of some items. But if they don't use these items, they don't need them.
Things like computers, cars, houses and other big/expensive items shouldn't be exclusive use items. But things like storage mediums (floppy disks) should be. Cloths also should be (depending on the clothing).
The Mayan communities in Chiapas are so beautiful, a local man sat and explained the communal system to me here so simple and lovely, communal lands, lands stay in the community, if you move you leave your land and your animals.
Extended families split plots, have a house in the center all the crops and tools go in so everyone shares.
Those who have more give them potlatch style over the year to the others at festivals. If these persons are albe to do so properly over the year they get to sit in a chair watching the sun rise. Really beautiful. The honor of helping ones neighbor goes above all else.
Mostly vegitarian.
Everything shared, extras used for ceremonies which bind the community, you can leave at any time, but have to give belongings back to the community. They have some stuff for survival, like running land, in past was all open. Harder now because of government in Mexico City and their restrictions, so can{t say plant a field this year and pick a different one next. Still has worked well for some soil retention. But must get overworked.
Learning more about communal lands, really interesting.
When someone throws all the parties for the year because they have a little extra they get to live in a special house with that family that{s all adobe, for a year, after fulfilling tasks leave.
Imagine not owning the house you live in for a year or renting just sharing with other families, they are so happy, its amazing showed us a cool turtle they found in the creek today.
<span style=\'color:blue\'> "The necrophilous person can relate to an object--a flower or a person--only if he possesses it; hence a threat to his possession is a threat to himself . . He loves control, and in the act of controlling he kills life." <span style=\'color:red\'>[Erich Fromm, "The Heart of Man"] </span></span>
<span style=\'colorurple\'> It is not the unloved who intitiate disaffection, but those who cannot love because they only love themselves."</span> <span style=\'color:red\'>Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed</span>
And the pope claims to be christian!
My point was that the term socialism is wide ranging. Thus some don't want communism - whilst other socialists are like TAT.
Captain Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war two great super-armies developed. Us, the Russians and the French on one side, Germany and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea being that each army would act as the other's deterrent. That way, there could never be a war.
Private Baldrick: Except, this is sort of a war, isn't it?
Captain Blackadder: That's right. There was one tiny flaw in the plan.
Lieutenant George: O, what was that?
Captain Blackadder: It was bollocks.
def.
Our current situation is that its so concentrated that some are selling it at ridiculous prices, whilst the vast majority have none what so ever.
An example is the EU and its food/fluid production. Again this is partly why i hate the EU: the food mountains and fluid lakes are in reality a crime against humanity.
Why should hordes of food be stacked up to rot? Whilst many many many people are literally starving to death.
Its just wrong.
Captain Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war two great super-armies developed. Us, the Russians and the French on one side, Germany and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea being that each army would act as the other's deterrent. That way, there could never be a war.
Private Baldrick: Except, this is sort of a war, isn't it?
Captain Blackadder: That's right. There was one tiny flaw in the plan.
Lieutenant George: O, what was that?
Captain Blackadder: It was bollocks.
Why do I always get dragged into these argument? There is actually a large debate among anarchists whether or not we can call ourselves socialists. The term has been so distorted, as you yourself prove, that it is probably less complicated if we don't.
Given a whole hearted Communist revolution i think it would be possible if the authorities are sensible about it and dont try to change a great deal straight away.
I believe that property should be allocated by the state according to job, look at the mess in London with people having to commute, ive heard stories of people living several hours away by train because they cant afford houses in London. However i also believe that the state should give the people involved some input into the descision making process allowing them some leaway over a given radius from their job.
Political Compass:
Socio/Economic -12.00
Liberal/Authoritarian: -12.00
OH FFS!!!
You are the most "famous anarchist" on the board. Everyone knows who you are. Why do most people know you? Well you used to be a moderator!. You also have a tendency to have tantrums.
However - why did i choose you? You are very left wing, your commments on the north south divide demonstrate this.
I was merely pointing out how the left are wide raning: and that neither group has a monopoly on the term socialism.
And this is what i was also on about TAT before: you arn't getting "dragged" into anything. So just take your head out of your own arse, and RELAX!!!
I agree with alot of what you say - i suppose i like you: but sometimes you act like such a wanker!
Captain Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war two great super-armies developed. Us, the Russians and the French on one side, Germany and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea being that each army would act as the other's deterrent. That way, there could never be a war.
Private Baldrick: Except, this is sort of a war, isn't it?
Captain Blackadder: That's right. There was one tiny flaw in the plan.
Lieutenant George: O, what was that?
Captain Blackadder: It was bollocks.
There are certainly people who would like it to be...the wider, the "better".
The promiscuous use of "left terminology" to cover bourgeois aspirations is a pernicious practice, in my view.
Just tossing the word around doesn't count for anything, doesn't mean anything, and provides zero guidance to what someone's politics actually are.
I've noticed on this board that more than one person will claim to be a "socialist" when what they really want is capitalism..."with a human face."
They are certainly "entitled" to their desires...but I, for one, would like to see considerably greater "truth in (political) advertising".
It would help a lot.
The Redstar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas
I'm not going to sleep with you.
As they ought to.
I was an admin thank you very much.
Why is that so bad?
I only did that to piss Kez off.
There are at least 5 threads where people use me as an example for something, usually negativly.
No!
I'm very relaxed.
I fucking well hope not!
Of course you do.
What, because I started some threads on an internet message board about myself? I'm sure there are far more terrible things in the world that could qualify someone as a wanker...Being a christian tory voting right winger for one.
Bakunin said that anarchism could be called "stateless socialism."
If I had one definition of socialism, it would be this: collective ownership of the means of production by the proletariat. Anything less isn't socialist, it's as simple as that.
"to become a philosopher, start by walking very slowly"
God, I wish Marx had used a different term--this may be the top misunderstanding about Communism.
That's debatable. You could have semi-socialist policies policies. Like I know TAT is a semi-jackass. While RedStar is a complete jackass. So a nation could be partially-socialist, while say Cuba or the pre-1954 was completely, or almost completely, socialist.
Philosophy Forums
Some quotes on the range of my character:
". He's only around still because he's a member of the "old guard" who seems to have friends in high places."
-CubanFox
“I couldn't care less if he's the highest quality posted on the board. The guy goes out of his way to be unpleasant to anyone who "dares" to disagree. This is not some one off event, he was only let back in because he promised he had reformed. He lied then, and you lot gave him the benefit of the doubt, now your going to give it to him again.”
-Enigma
“Amusing as Elijah's bons mots may be, when you find yourself reading someone's apparently serious posts twice, searching for some sort of sardonic quip hidden in there, you know that person needs to be banned.”
-CubanFox
“And therefore, much as I hate to say it, I think Elijah must be banned for the good of the board.”
-RedStar
“Poor Elijah, we really do make life hard for him!”
-Canikickit
