"Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity" (3 Viewers)

[melanieeeee.]

everyone knows communism is right.

 

[nikolas]

Thank God for Pinochet.

He saved Chile from death and now it's one of the most prosperous and stable economies in Latin America where people are not persecuted for their beliefs.

Venezuela is a disaster waiting to happen. Chavez can only fund his social programs by selling his oil to "evil capitalists". Let me tell you without a middle class or foreign investment those people are doomed to forever repeating the cycle of poverty and now he is trying to create a dictatorship and overwriting the Venezuelan constitution with his enabling acts.

Without oil money he'd be running his bankrupt banana republic by now as true failed state.



For the 100 millionth time it's not possible, It's quackery. You can either have complete market drive economy or a complete Socialist economy.

Any intermixing of those economic philosophies has a long term adverse effect.

"For the 100 millionth time it's not possible, It's quackery. You can either have complete market drive economy or a complete Socialist economy."

Year 11 Economics tells me you are wrong.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Yes you have hit it on the head when you say I would moderate my political position to suit the contemporary working class. As with anything it needs to move with the times I feel.

I agree we need to move with the times. Marxism is not some invariant 150 year old dogma, it has moved with the times. However there is a difference between moving with the times and moving with the popular opinion of the “masses”.

I just don't think it is going to and perhaps doesn't need to anymore.

The English, French and Russian aristocracy believed the same about feudalism and capitalism. They assumed the permanence and perfection of their society, but history has shown it was merely a stage which was destined to pass away. Whether capitalism is the same or not we will have to see, but when the ruling class pronounces the permanence and perfection of a mode of production they are falling into the same trap that all hitherto existing ruling classes have.

Just out of interest what spawned these leftist views? was it circumstance (like myself) or a simple consciense?

A combination of circumstance and coincidence. A few months after I got my first job (I was paid $5.09 an hour) we began studying the topic “Australia and the Vietnam War Era” in history which involved the discussion of communism and the cold war. It was at this time I first decided to read the Communist Manifesto. It was from there that I attained my interest in Marxism, being a product of circumstance (my work and the fact that Marxism explained what I was experiencing) and coincidence (our study of communism in history).

I would love to discuss the philosophy and theory behind it anyday but I think that these forums are a poor medium for such a discussion.

Agreed

An interesting case: Venezuela was on the way to socialism.

But Chavez decided that, fundamentally, socialism needs pieces of democracy to work right (lest it stops representing the will of the people and slips into authoritarianism), so he changed course a bit for democratic socialism.

I think you are very confused here.


1. “Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen” - Leon Trotsky. You can't add democracy to socialism like a cook add pepper to a soup.


2. However, by “democracy” we do not mean bourgeois parliamentary democracy. We mean proletarian democracy, soviet democracy. Thus, it is incorrect to conclude that “democratic socialism” is socialism plus democracy. “Democratic socialism” is in fact bourgeois democractic capitalism plus state ownership.


3. Venezuela is not and was never “on the way to socialism”. “Chavezism” is thoroughly bourgeois and all Marxists recognise this (not including those pseudo-marxists who have a fetish for Latin American populism such as the DSP and it's youth group Resistance)

Also interesting: Chile, in the 1970's, had the best welfare system in the world. The American government pulled their typical "COMMUNISM IS EVIL!!" shit and sent the CIA in to stage a coup, then promptly dismantled the welfare system. Chile was a social democracy at the time. It's stories like these that make me question just how much these old states 'failed' and how much they were forced to fail; I believe a similar story applies to Afghanistan, though it fared far worse afterwards than Chile.

Not that you are claiming Allende's Chile to be socialist I feel the need to counterpose your implicit support of the regime with a touch of reality from the ICC.


What was the Allende regime? Let the myth-makers of the “left” answer this question: Was it a “working class government”? But how can the working class “govern” the capitalist state, parliament, the army and the police? Is working class parliamentary or trade union support the criterion? But that is to say that almost all the bourgeois democracies are “working class” today. Was it a “socialist” regime? Only if you understand by that the policies of state capitalism. Was Allende’s coalition an expression of the organised might of the Chilean workers at the point of production, an expression of the self-activity of workers’ councils, factory and neighbourhood committees? Was Allende’s coalition a result of a huge wave of revolutionary working class activity not only in Chile but also in Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, the US and the world? Was his coalition the class response of the workers to the deepening crisis of world capitalism in decadence? Was the whole thrust of his policies to abolish capitalist production, ie to abolish wage labour, commodity production and extend the revolutionary impetus towards the world arena? No? Of course not! A million times NO! - ICC, 30 years after the fall of the Allende regime in Chile

If a group of people want to get together in a peaceful and voluntary manner to ensure each gets the best deal from their employer, who am I to stop them? Where exactly does having unions go against laissez faire (apart from their constant rent seeking)?

It's interesting to see a libertarian promoting the formation of oligopolies considering the usual argument made by libertarians is that monopolies are the product of state intervention and are not the natural product of the free-market.


Further couldn't your argument be carried over to commodity and consumer goods markets. If a group of large businesses want to get together to form cartels and monopolies in a peaceful and voluntary manner to ensure each gets the best deal from their consumers, who am I to stop them?

Capitalism encourages self determination and individuality. The ideology you've outlined relies upon conformity and the centralised distribution of resources.

Lovely assertion. Now would you care to elaborate on it and back it up?

On the lack of capital behind workers collectives: Are you saying that there's nobody with significant amounts of capital who believes in marxism strongly enough to sponsor such collectives to get them off the ground (esp. if they're the most efficient method of production)?

1. Christ almighty, are you even reading my posts! Co-operatives are not socialist! Marxists do not out of principle support their formation!


2. Why would someone with “significant amounts of capital” want to sponsor the formation of a workers co-operative? Wouldn't it be in his rational self-interest to set them to work for himself?

I have read what Marxism is you fag, I don't want any of it do youunderstand.

Would you care to tell me some of what you have read? Are there any specific books or articles you could list?

My family lived through the hell known as Communism andneither they nor I want anything to do with it. Get it? I don't want topractice Marxism and I don't want Marxism imposed on me and if you evertried to force me to live your "Utopian" World I would do whatever ittook to defend myself.

I want to ask you an honest question. Do you know how to read? Or is it that you just are a slow learner? We went over the definition of “communism” and “Communist state” in the first 10 pages. I thought most of you got the difference after that...

You little shits think just because you've justfinished your HSC that you can lecture me?

Both I and untouchablecuz have our HSC in 2009. O, and if your sick of our “lecture” you can always drop out of the course...

You've never even held adamn job in your lives so what can you possibly know?

Both I and untouchablecuz hold jobs. We both work in the fast food industry. Have you ever had a job, or have you been mummied your entire life in northern Sydney, having never mixed with the “commoners”?

Who's them? If I run a store I run it because of my work, Do you thinkmanagers just sit there and do nothing you freaking bum?

I've already said they do! But there is a difference between being compensated for your labour and being over-compensated at the expense of others.


Also, I'm a “bum” now am I. Well what d you expect form “westie” scum like me...

They work 24/7to keep the business running and they work hard so once again youlittle rat who never held a job wouldn't know squat.

The funny thing is you demonstrate here how little experience you have in the real world!


First of all it's important to point out there is a difference between a manager and an owner. In big businesses the owner(s) do little if anything in the day to do functioning of the business. Management on the other hand are paid to work and more often than not (in lower level management) they themselves have no ownership stake in the company itself (and in that sense they are proletarian). It would be a lie to claim that in most cases the management have the hardest job. In my workplace the management frequently pass on their activities to the shop-floor crew (ie. Filtering fries, cleaning the ice-cream machine, counting tills and even in writing rosters!)


However in many small-businesses management and ownership are held by the same person. In this case they do indeed often have heavy workloads (especially when self-employed), but this does not justify exploitation of their employees (which they may or may not have).

Ah yes you're freaking wise aren't you? That's why every Marxist inhistory has failed miserably. The only failure is Communism and nobodyis crazy enough to run to Communism except for you little moonbats whowouldn't understand anything.

Not only are you not making an argument, your not even being coherent any more.

What do you think sonny jim?

I think you are way out of your depth, to be very honest

You sell your product then you make profitget it? As you make more profit your business grows and your moneyincreases therefore you can use that money to spend on yourself orothers if you desire. When you make profit you have incentive to createa better product and your products become cheaper.

Sorry but you haven't answered any of the above questions, but this is what I can draw from your response:


“What is wealth?” - I have no freakin idea. Does it have to do with profit, or money or something?
“In what sense does buying and selling goods create "wealth"?” - It as far as profit is realised by the buying and selling of commodities, wealth is created.


So from the above we can come to the conclusion that by “wealth” you mean “profit”. The question now begs, where does the profit from the sale of a particular commodity come from?

What the BS that property could be owned by everyone? ahahahaha sorrybut it can't work at all.

Maybe you should go and tell that to the “savages” of India described in Rosa Luxemburg's ‘Introduction to Political Economy’ who knew of no concept of private property.

If we all owned it then who would run it? Whowould maintain it?

All of us?

It's like saying we should all own your computertherefore nobody owns it well let me tell you this if all of us ownedyour computer that would be the most chaotic thing ever.

1. You are still not being coherent. Please, type slowly and think before you post.
2. You still don't seem to understand the difference between “private property” and “personal property”.

If you everwanted to type something for an assignment you technically would neverever be able to accomplish that because everyone else is fighting overwho should do what, when, and how.

Why do you assume the scarcity of computer equipment? Even if there was a scarcity in the availability of computers for private use, it wouldn't result in anything much different to the situation today (or maybe you've never seen a public library).

I don't think you understand what I'm saying, I'm saying that if youwanted to go to a doctor, plumber, dentist then you should save yourmoney up and help yourself and if you can't afford it then rely on yourfriends and family. Get it?

Why do I even bother with you? *To everyone but zstar, I trust you understand my joke*

An employee has the right to hisproperty and business, You as an employee agree by his set up rulesvoluntarily and if you're not happy then you have the right to changeto another job. A company cannot force you to things the way he/shewants, A company boss cannot make you buy his/her product, A companyboss will not put you in prison for disagreeing with him/her, It is 2completely different things. In fact you as a worker have anoppurtunity to take his/her place and make your own sets of rules. Youthink people who run businesses are lazy but I tell they are not. Manyof them spend sleepless nights to ensure that things are running, Agovernment however couldn't give a crap if something ran properlybecause government could use force to quash any opposition throughpara-military and military means. You are confusing 2 different things.

No but you advocate that society owes you something

No I don't. I advocate that the bourgeois class “owes” us something, but for that we don't merely want compensation, we want their complete liquidation.

You think you havea right to everything and that everything should be handed to you on asilver platter because somehow it fits in with your Utopian view.

I dare you to go and say that to a striking docker or factory worker

I didn't read the 25 pages and I certainly don't get what you're on about

I think you miss-typed something. *Fixed *

Let me tellyou something about Marx. When he was writing his theories Germany wasstill in the middle of the Industrial revolution

For someone trying to “tell me something about Marx”, you certainly don't know much about him. Firstly, Marx left Germany in 1843 living at first in Paris and from 1849 till his death in England. Both the majority of his early works and all of his later works where written not in Germany but in France and England.


Secondly Marx was not writing in the “middle of the Industrial Revolution”. Considering that according to Hobsbawm the Industrial Revolution broke out in the 1780s and was not fully felt until the 1830s or 1840s, (or considering you don't like Marxists), T. S. Ashton, on the other hand, held that it occurred roughly between 1760 and 1830, I think it would have been very difficult indeed for a man who lived from 1818 to 1883 to have been 'writing his theories [...] in the middle of the industrial revolution”.

he saw to classes theso called Bourgeoisie and the Workers

That's not entirely true. In different occasions and circumstances he also recognised the existence of the aristocracy, clergy, peasantry, landowners, bureaucracy, petit-bourgeoisie and lumpen-proletariat. You might want to read Marx's use of class by Bertell Ollman for more information.

What he never anticipated however was the rise of the middle class

Please define “middle class”. In Marx's lifetime the “middle class” had formerly been the bourgeoisie and more recently the petit-bourgeoisie.

he never anticipated [...] improvements in labour laws

That is completely untrue. Matter of fact Marx was a eager supporter in the attainment of reforms for the working class whilst a member of the IWA. Of course whilst Marx may not have been able to predict the rise of the modern “welfare state”, this phenomenon has been investigated and explained by subsequent Marxists over the past 100 years. Marxism doesn't end with Marx.

he never anticipated [...] as well as human nature.

Have you ever read the 1844 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts! Marx discusses “species being” there. He also makes passing reference to these claims in the Communist Manifesto.


Congratulations! You have official proven your ignorance to everyone on this board! If you keep it up you may just end up “winning” this “debate”!

You really don't believe me when I say that Marxism ALWAYS leads to dictatorship by the government.

I know that many so called “socialist” revolutions have lead to dictatorships. I also know that some disillusioned Marxists have become reformist allies of the bourgeoisie. It is you however that fails to look at the material conditions of these revolutions and their subsequent societies objectively or scientifically, instead you let correlation imply causation.

I'm telling you that no one can because the nature of Marxism means that those who want Marxism must appropriate personal property through force and therefore those who refuse and persecuted for not submitting to those orders.

When you can piece together a coherent and logical sentence I will respond to your argument. Until then I have no idea what you are on about.

What more evidence do you want until you admit that Marxism has been tried and failed? How many more lives must be destroyed before your experiment ends up the inevitable disaster that it is?

Socialism is no experiment. Please read my sig!

the elite ruling class always wants and has more and they won't care if the rest of us starve just as long as they can enjoy lobster. Of course they think you're too good for lobster.

What does that have to do with the inevitability of communism to generate class distinctions?

This will cause severe imbalances and shortages. In fact by your logic most people will never have to work they can just sit back and expect everything right in front of them with nothing but the invisible man to run everything.

We have already been over this! Please stop rehashing old, defunct arguments

A truck driver needs fuel and maintenance to run the truck and so he needs people to dig up the oil and go to all the trouble of doing that and believe me nobody would bother if their was no incentive to do so

There is incentive! The incentive of maintaining and improving your quality of life!

yet you don't realise that most people will not work because they just enjoy it

Flip back 15 pages and read the passages I quoted from the 1844 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts

It's not fair for someone who does save and does take care of his money to be responsible for somebody who doesn't.

You know it's also not “fair” that a worker who labours for 8 – 12 hrs a day should take home only 4 hrs worth of the product of his labour.

Sometimes you must work jobs you dislike to get what you want or desire. That's called facing reality. I don't want to get old, sick and die out but I must face that truth.

You fall into the trap of believing this “reality” to be permanent.

Mugabe did that in Zimbabwe and guess what? Now Zimbabweans are hungry and they have one million percent inflation. He gave away white owned property to blacks who didn't know what to do with those farms and now the breadbasket of Southern Africa is a turd hole that cannot feed itself let alone Africa.

I'm not a Mugabe supporter. Mugabe is a member of Zimbabwe's bourgeois ruling class. If you think taking property from whites and giving it to blacks is socialism, I'm not a socialist.

Kid listen many in history have been idealistic like you but as they grow older they realise the mistakes that they made in their thinking

Idealistic? Maybe you have never read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engles or the German Ideology by Marx.


Zstar, From now on I will resume my policy of ignoring your posts. You stupidity it astonishing and I have no more time to waste on you.

 

[tommykins]

回复: Re: "Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity"

bahahaha i love how zeigeist is ripping onto zstar so bad. hahahahahah

 

[not.addie]

Zeitgeist308, you seem very very informed about communism/ socialism etc? But I was wondering if you have ever had the experience of living in a socialist country?
While theories on paper might seem ideal, the reality is far off. While socialism and communism incorporate great ideas, the major concepts are against human instinct, too fictional and simply based on assumptions.

 

[zstar]

Ok fine Zeitgest you've won, Your great bearded god Karl Marx is right about everything.

So tell me if you were to have your marxist takeover what would you do to someone like me?

What would you do to my house, my car, my property?

What would you do if I did not want to listen to you because I did not agree with you.

I want you to stop giving pages of theoretical Marxist crap and tell me how would I become this wonderful Marxist if you say that you cannot take away my property through force.

So what miracle cure do you propose Doctor?

 

[Silver Persian]

Zeitgeist308, you seem very very informed about communism/ socialism etc? But I was wondering if you have ever had the experience of living in a socialist country?
While theories on paper might seem ideal, the reality is far off. While socialism and communism incorporate great ideas, the major concepts are against human instinct, too fictional and simply based on assumptions.

Read thread before posting pls

 

[not.addie]

Read thread before posting pls

Sorry, it was too long. And I only had 7 minutes of my study break left.

 

[Trefoil]

See, somebody like me wants to work towards socialism from within the framework of freedom insofar as it is possible - if it's not possible to eventually convert fully to socialism peacefully whilst maximising rights, then so be it - it's not worth it.

As such, I am very suspicious of the motives of radical socialists like you, Zeitgeist, who oppose social democracy just as much as you do laissez faire capitalism (which, don't get me wrong, needs opposing). It makes me wonder how you plan to achieve your goals, and all I can think of is "through violence".

 

[zstar]

Wealth doesn't flow up. Capitalism IS trickle down economics. Without capital from the wealthier people, there would be no way to fill the demand for goods of the average joe in the first place.

If you believe in no government then you're a anarchist. For example a carpenter who makes chairs first off,everyone needs a chair. You state, "The chair will go to whomever needs it. Who will decide who "needs" the chair? Who will enforce it?Your "fairy tale" society where people willing work very hard to build stuff than give it all away is laughable. The reality is that in a freemarket society, people are free to give to charity all they want, but they are also free to keep everything they make. This is called property rights

 

[Zeitgeist308]

bahahaha i love how zeigeist is ripping onto zstar so bad. hahahahahah

*Sigh*, sad thing is I'm running out of steam. My temper flares when I see this same shit over-and-over again. Hence why my post quality has gone down hill in the last 5 or so pages.

Sorry, it was too long. And I only had 7 minutes of my study break left.

Next study break you might want to flick through some of my posts from earlier. If there is something I haven't yet covered feel free to ask it! I'm happy to answer it it is serious.

So tell me if you were to have your marxist takeover what would you do to someone like me?

Who is someone like you? You didn't respond to my above questions re your own work history? Do you have a job? Have you ever had a job? What are the occupations of your parents (assuming you are still their depend, I'm not sure how old you are)

What would you do to my house, my car, my property?

Nothing! Keep your house, keep your car, keep your television, your computer, your mobile phone, your clothes and all your other personal property. What we (and I use the word we to mean the working people organised in bodies such as soviets, workers' councils, factory committees) will do is confiscate any land or productive property you may own (remembering this is a gradual process and will take years).

What would you do if I did not want to listen to you because I did not agree with you.

Well that depends on who you are and far you wish to go in terms of "not agreeing with us". I think the constitution of the RSFSR is still perfectly applicable today as regards the right to vote which I think answers your question (that is of course unless you are openly declaring your support of counter-revolutionary armed resistance, which is another thing entirely):

64. The right to vote and to be elected to the soviets is enjoyed by the following citizens of both sexes, irrespective of religion, nationality, domicile, etc., of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, who shall have completed their eighteenth year by the day of election:

(a) All who have acquired the means of livelihood through labor that is productive and useful to society, and also persons engaged in housekeeping which enables the former to do productive work, i.e., laborers and employees of all classes who are employed in industry, trade, agriculture, etc., and peasants and Cossack agricultural laborers who employ no help for the purpose of making profits.
(b) Soldiers of the army and navy of the soviets.
(c) Citizens of the two preceding categories who have in any degree lost their capacity to work.
NOTE 1: Local soviets may, upon approval of the central power, lower the age standard mentioned herein.
NOTE 2: Non-citizens mentioned in Section 20 (Article Two, Chapter 5) have the right to vote.
​

65. The following persons enjoy neither the right to vote nor the right to be voted for, even though they belong to one of the categories enumerated above, namely:

(a) Persons who employ hired labor in order to obtain form it an increase in profits;
(b) Persons who have an income without doing any work, such as interest from capital, receipts from property, etc.;
(c) Private merchants, trade and commercial brokers;
(d) Monks and clergy of all denominations;
(e) Employees and agents of the former police, the gendarme corps, and the Okhrana (Czar's secret service), also members of the former reigning dynasty;
(f) Persons who have in legal form been declared demented or mentally deficient, and also persons under guardianship;
(g) Persons who have been deprived by a soviet of their rights of citizenship because of selfish or dishonorable offenses, for the period fixed by the sentence. - All-Russian Congress of Soviets, Article 4 of The 1918 Constitution of the RSFSR

​

 

[withoutaface]

It's interesting to see a libertarian promoting the formation of oligopolies considering the usual argument made by libertarians is that monopolies are the product of state intervention and are not the natural product of the free-market.

Unions don't necessarily need to constitute a monopoly on the labour market to be effective. If you've even got 20% of the workforce unionised (or less, I suppose), it's still in the interests of employer's to negotiate and find a way to tap that market.

Further couldn't your argument be carried over to commodity and consumer goods markets. If a group of large businesses want to get together to form cartels and monopolies in a peaceful and voluntary manner to ensure each gets the best deal from their consumers, who am I to stop them?

You shouldn't stop them. However if they are overcharging or generally producing poor quality products (e.g. if their innovation is stagnant), somebody's going to see business potential in moving into that market. I mean, if you look at the software market, people are doing it for free.

By the same token, if unions demand far above what workers would consider appropriate to maintain a comfortable lifestyle, you're going to have large numbers of them crossing picket lines.

Lovely assertion. Now would you care to elaborate on it and back it up?

What you've proposed relies on most (all?) of the population deciding that they want such a system to be in place and maintaining an interest in doing so. Further, there has to be some way to decide how goods are distributed.

1. Christ almighty, are you even reading my posts! Co-operatives are not socialist! Marxists do not out of principle support their formation!

Unless you're telling me that division of labour is a myth, I'm not exactly seeing what valid modes of production there are besides (a) having one person (the employer) decide what happens; and (b) having those who work there decide collectively.

2. Why would someone with “significant amounts of capital” want to sponsor the formation of a workers co-operative? Wouldn't it be in his rational self-interest to set them to work for himself?

If somebody like Noam Chomsky could sponsor and conduct such an experiment successfully, would his book sales not soar more than enough to compensate him for his trouble?

 

[zstar]

The problem with you Zeitgeist is that you don't embrace the beauty of conflict.

You don't realise that conflicts between people will always exist so long as humans exist.

Look at the way nature is, Everything in nature eats up the next and the strong dominates the weak.

You are just as I have been suspected all along, You are one with a Utopian view who assumes that humans will always be honest and will be willing to give to others.

In abolishing governments and wages completely you've unknowingly created another conflict, Each segment of society will want their own way.

Without wages you have created one huge bartering system which will still lead to conflict anyway.

I embrace the concept that without war their cannot be peace.

Their will always be rich and poor, Because the poor cannot exist without the rich and the rich cannot exist without the poor. Equality is an illusion because balance in this universe comes from conflict.

 

[withoutaface]

The problem with you Zeitgeist is that you don't embrace the beauty of conflict.

You don't realise that conflicts between people will always exist so long as humans exist.

Look at the way nature is, Everything in nature eats up the next and the strong dominates the weak.

You are just as I have been suspected all along, You are one with a Utopian view who assumes that humans will always be honest and will be willing to give to others.

In abolishing governments and wages completely you've unknowingly created another conflict, Each segment of society will want their own way.

Without wages you have created one huge bartering system which will still lead to conflict anyway.

I embrace the concept that without war their cannot be peace.

Their will always be rich and poor, Because the poor cannot exist without the rich and the rich cannot exist without the poor. Equality is an illusion because balance in this universe comes from conflict.

The above poster does not represent my point of view.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

See, somebody like me wants to work towards socialism from within the framework of freedom insofar as it is possible

Freedom! Bourgeois democracy is no freedom. As much as we would like the period of transition to be peaceful, this does not open the avenue of parliament unlike some have been lead to believe (matter of fact Marx actually endorsed revolutionary parliamentarianism in countries such as the USA and the Netherlands although he never discussed this tactic in detail)

As such, I am very suspicious of the motives of radical socialists like you, Zeitgeist, who oppose social democracy just as much as you do laissez faire capitalism (which, don't get me wrong, needs opposing).

I don't blame you of being suspicious after a century of dictatorial totalitarians and third-world guerrillas labelling themselves as "Communist".

However it is equally fair to say that the working class has grown (or atleast, should be growing) suspicious of social democrats and the like, promising to bring down socialism from the heavens following the capture of the bourgeois state machine, only to attack the working class politically, economically and "spiritually".

It makes me wonder how you plan to achieve your goals, and all I can think of is "through violence".

I myself am a member of the communist left. As such my conception of revolution is different from that of other (but not all) communists. I think it more appropriate to define the form revolution will take negatively (so as not to ascribe recipes for the cooks of tomorrow). Proletarian revolution is not military conquest. Proletarian revolution is not a coup by a clique of guerrillas. Revolution is not a parliamentary majority. What I can say is that revolution is the self-activity of the class, the attainment of proletarian democracy.

Wealth doesn't flow up. Capitalism IS trickle down economics. Without capital from the wealthier people, there would be no way to fill the demand for goods of the average joe in the first place.

Who is this aimed at? If it is to me I don't get your point.

If you believe in no government then you're a anarchist.

I seek the abolition of the state. If this is the sole criterion for being an Anarchist (which it is not) then I am an Anarchist (as all Marxists would be).

For example a carpenter who makes chairs first off,everyone needs a chair.

The chair could also be mass produced out of plastic and metal components in a factory. Which sort of chairs will be produced will be decided democratically by the people themselves through their organs of power and administration (in this case workers councils (soviets) and factory committees).

You state, "The chair will go to whomever needs it.

So long as there is an abundance of chairs relative to consumer demand, yes.

If chairs are scarce more will be produced, but in the interim or assuming the temporary inability to produce chairs the goods would be distributed according to the work of the individual. He who puts in 8 hrs on a building site is entitled to a chair before he who puts in 4 hrs.

Who will decide who "needs" the chair? Who will enforce it?

Once again, in-so-far as we assume and (relative) abundance of chairs to consumer demand the individual will decide whether or not they need a chair and if so of how many.

Your "fairy tale" society where people willing work very hard to build stuff than give it all away is laughable.

Well I suppose the idea that people would work to produce without the coercive authority of and the benefits (defence) accompanying bonded serf-labour on the land owned by the nobility would also have seemed bizarre to the aristocracy of 12th Century England.

Also, adding on that point, it's funny how people "willingly work very hard to build stuff than give it [...] away" in the form of charity. "Human nature" is a very strange thing indeed

 

[Enteebee]

I seek the abolition of the state. If this is the sole criterion for being an Anarchist (which it is not) then I am an Anarchist (as all Marxists would be).

How do you define 'the state'; as any form of social organisation which holds coercive force over individual liberty (imo communists taking a qualitative view of liberty whereas many libertarians take a far more quantitative view)? There are two areas where I believe we will always need such a force, the first is as a final judicial point of call... It is my assumption that even if everyone were 'perfectly rational' we would still have disagreements. Secondly I believe there is a need for some regulation, for example take farming techniques... if someone tells you how it is best to farm instead of letting you try failed techniques for yourself it leaves you with greater time in which to do other things.

I'm not quite sure though what you mean by 'abolition of the state', it doesn't quite gel with my understanding of marxism (though I may just be extremely wrong) unless you mean abolition of a certain type of 'state'.

 

[zstar]

The chair could also be mass produced out of plastic and metalcomponents in a factory. Which sort of chairs will be produced will bedecided democratically by the people themselves through their organs ofpower and administration (in this case workers councils (soviets) andfactory committees).

You see the problem is your councils are like mini governments. If those mini-councils wanted to they could tell the voters to pee off because they monopolise that certain product and they are the ones that decide if what they produced and how much they produced is appropriate, Furthermore democratic elections will create a huge mess and conflict between the voters who want it this way and the others who want it the other way. Furthermore how are you going to prevent hoarding and those who take more than their fair share?

So long as there is an abundance of chairs relative to consumer demand, yes.

If chairs are scarce more will be produced, but in the interim orassuming the temporary inability to produce chairs the goods would bedistributed according to the work of the individual. He who puts in 8hrs on a building site is entitled to a chair before he who puts in 4hrs.

But you see you can't prevent somebody who bribes his way. If that person wants a chair he may decide to give him more of his produce and circumvent the system.

Once again, in-so-far as we assume and (relative) abundance of chairsto consumer demand the individual will decide whether or not they needa chair and if so of how many.

How will you ever produce enough if you know there's no real reason to work that hard? How could you just measure ones labour equally by hours when one person may have a more dangerous and harder job than somebody else?

Well I suppose the idea that people would work to produce without thecoercive authority of and the benefits (defence) accompanying bondedserf-labour on the land owned by the nobility would also have seemedbizarre to the aristocracy of 12th Century England.

Well we're not living in 12th century England are we?

Nobody today fits your idea of a serf labourer, You're exagerrating by trying to make things look worse when they're not really that bad.

 

[KFunk]

I seek the abolition of the state. If this is the sole criterion for being an Anarchist (which it is not) then I am an Anarchist (as all Marxists would be).

I am skeptical of a political philosophy which rejects any kind of state apparatus. Like Enteebee I am interested to know what your definition of 'state' is. The moral psychology research that I have been exposed to makes me doubt the human capacity to self regulate international, or even national, society. I think self regulated commune style living may be possible, but I have strong doubts about large societies on the scale required for specialist services/pursuits (medicine, IT, academic research etc).

 

[withoutaface]

KFunk: If you're interested, an anarchist view of how courts could be conducted without a state can be found here. It's fairly long, but I found it interesting, if not entirely convincing.

 

[Enteebee]

KFunk: If you're interested, an anarchist view of how courts could be conducted without a state can be found here. It's fairly long, but I found it interesting, if not entirely convincing.

What if someone refuses to have their case heard by any court? I.e. If I kill someone with little power in society, why will I accept to go to court with some little plaintiff instead of killing them off as well? The importance of the court is that there is a final arbiter who has greater power than any individual or bloc of individuals in society and who then distributes what is considered justice.

For example, what sort of a deal would have the asbestos victims had against James Hardie's if there wasn't the state to force them to go to court. Society punished the company, but do you really think that's enough? As it is even within our state-run courts I imagine they got slightly less than what a truly democratic representation of the will of the people would have given them.

Now you may say "Well society musn't have cared so much if they didn't punish James Hardie more", but I think this is to force upon human beings a sort of pro-activity which just isn't feasible. I don't believe ostracism = justice, in my opinion it is likely to lag far behind what a considered population would consider the just result as. Many people simply will not know and those who do know, in many facets of their life may block it out for a dehumanised personal convenience .