"Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity" (2 Viewers)

[Zeitgeist308]

I mean, if you look at the software market, people are doing it for free.

Funny thing that "human nature".

BTW, I have no disagreements about the other replies you provided above. This is not an debate about the correctness libertarianism.

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.

Running from this premise, how does is the "conformity" it's logical conclusion? "Conformity" in what sense? Why is this "conformity" (if it were to exist) necessarily a "bad" thing?

Further, there has to be some way to decide how goods are distributed.

Yes, and this does involve a centralised (plan for the) distribution of resources. However, here, by "centralised" I am not using the word in the sense you're thinking. A system of non-hierarchical, directly democratic workers councils is a centralised body despite it's at first decentralised appearance. If you are interested in a blueprint of potential methods of distribution you may wish to read the following: Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution by the GIK and Workers' Councils and the Economics of Self-Managed Society by Castoriadis (please note I have not read either of the above works but have been recommended them. If you do read through them please take them with a grain of salt as both have been written by council-communist insprired groups/individuals and thus it is likely that both suffer from a fetish of the management and tend to fail to produce a very sophisticated analysis of either capitalism or communism as a mode of production)

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.

I'm afraid I don't fully understand what you are trying to say here. Capitalism is a mode of production. Changing the management of a capitalist enterprise from that of a hierarchical system of professionals to that of a non-hierarchical system of self-management does not change their fundamentally capitalist character. An article that covers this topic is Communism menas the elimination of the Law of Value and the unification of the Productive Forces from the ICC.

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.

Sorry Zstar, Social Darwinism is discredited today. Ever read Mutual Aid by Kropotkin or (in case you eschew the authority of evolutionary biologists who happen to be anarchists) Mises' Human Action.

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.

No. I hold the "utopian view" that the consciousness and behaviour of the individual is determined (or at least constrained) by the environment and social structures in which they inhabit.

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

Obviously you fail to differentiate between the rule over men (in the form of class rule ie. the state) and the administration of things.

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

A system of barter (as with all markets) assumes the scarcity of the goods in question. Since communism is "post-scarcity", barter will not exist.

 

[withoutaface]

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.

I think the idea is that if you're convicted in a court, you've got a certain time period during which you can appeal before you're carted off. If your appeal fails in a second court, then you're convicted and dragged away.

If you're going around killing Plaintiffs, their heirs are going to be reasonably certain that they can kill you without consequence.

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.

Once again, you can be convicted in absentia and you're only hurting your case by not turning up.

 

[Enteebee]

I think the idea is that if you're convicted in a court, you've got a certain time period during which you can appeal before you're carted off. If your appeal fails in a second court, then you're convicted and dragged away.

Who does this? A private army? It seems to me that under such a system it's likely that the whims of powerful blocs are going to end up being more important than an individuals' rights. I'd much rather us all be under the whim of the most powerful 'bloc' which we are all as individuals taken to be equal parts of, and have some level of control over.

 

[withoutaface]

Who does this? A private army? It seems to me that under such a system it's likely that the whims of powerful blocs are going to end up being more important than individuals. I'd much rather us all be under the whim of the most powerful 'bloc' which we are all a part of and have some level of control over.

I'd suppose the costs of recruiting private police agents or whatever you'd like to call them would either be incorporated into the court's fees, or recouped via forced labour for the convicted.

EDIT: We already are controlled by powerful blocs. Politicians analyse outcomes in terms of how happy they make rentseekers and progressive taxation is broadly accepted because 95% of the population resent the remainder. A government only needs 51% of the vote (if that) to rule and it doesn't matter how vehemently the rest despise their policies, so a priori our current system of parliamentary democracy isn't any different from the situation you've described.

 

[Enteebee]

James hardies kills off 50,000 Australians using unsafe practices. All those people launch a case against them by starting up their own court... now they don't agree to accept these people's court. So what happens is these people have to set up a private army (or police force maybe a better term?) and go out and try to take them on, meanwhile if James Hardie and others want to form their own little army who's going to want to try to take them on?

Another group of people dead for the justice of 50,000. I'd much rather no one be allowed to control their own private police/army and instead we all be responsible to one authority, either a benevolent dictator or a representative democracy.

 

[withoutaface]

James hardies kills off 50,000 Australians using unsafe practices. All those people launch a case against them by starting up their own court... now they don't agree to accept these people's court. So what happens is these people have to set up a private army (or police force maybe a better term?) and go out and try to take them on, meanwhile if James Hardie and others want to form their own little army who's going to want to try to take them on?

Another group of people dead for the justice of 50,000. I'd much rather no one be allowed to control their own private police/army and instead we all be responsible to one authority, either a benevolent dictator or a representative democracy.

If a group of 50 000 people really wanted to get together and bring down James Hardie right now, they'd be able to do so. Our current system of laws doesn't function automatically, and they certainly wouldn't if every man was hellbent on killing his neighbour.

It's about the vast majority having enough faith in the system that they're prepared to defer to its judgement, and that's going to happen whether it's being funded through taxation or otherwise.

 

[Enteebee]

EDIT: We already are controlled by powerful blocs. Politicians analyse outcomes in terms of how happy they make rentseekers and progressive taxation is broadly accepted because 95% of the population resent the remainder. A government only needs 51% of the vote (if that) to rule and it doesn't matter how vehemently the rest despise their policies, so a priori our current system of parliamentary democracy isn't any different from the situation you've described.

While I don't think that's an accurate picture in reality of our government (though perhaps somewhat on paper), I accept that we cannot eliminate the power of large blocs of people. All I can say is that it seems to me for it to be mutually beneficial for all these blocs (including the minorities, who do have some power) to ceed what power they have over to an ultimate authority that gives them a political representation of their power, without the need for war. If this authority is not an 'ultimate authority', it seems to me that they'll have no 'faith' in the authority and war will be far more likely the outcome...

IMO even if we implemented the judicial system you're proposing, it would eventually lead to the state - If it is truly a wise system.

If a group of 50 000 people really wanted to get together and bring down James Hardie right now, they'd be able to do so. Our current system of laws doesn't function automatically, and they certainly wouldn't if every man was hellbent on killing his neighbour.

It's about the vast majority having enough faith in the system that they're prepared to defer to its judgement, and that's going to happen whether it's being funded through taxation or otherwise.

If 50,000 people decided to go bring down Hardies now they would be broken up by our military.

 

[withoutaface]

While I don't think that's an accurate picture in reality of our government (though perhaps somewhat on paper), I accept that we cannot eliminate the power of large blocs of people. All I can say is that it seems to me for it to be mutually beneficial for all these blocs (including the minorities, who do have some power) to ceed what power they have over to an ultimate authority that gives them a political representation of their power, without the need for war. If this authority is not an 'ultimate authority' though it seems to me that they'll have no 'faith' in the authority and war will be far more likely the outcome...

IMO even if we implemented the judicial system you're proposing, it would eventually lead to the state - If it is truly a wise system.



If 50,000 people decided to go bring down Hardies now they would be broken up by our military.

If it's mutually beneficial then it will happen anyway. To take an example, property disputes generally find resolution through a mutually agreed and respected valuer, and I don't think you've made a case for why a generally accepted, private equivalent of the High Court would not come into being.

EDIT: Military coups happen all the time in countries with unstable governments/dissatisfied people. If the majority of people respected the system under which Hardie were convicted or let off, then you'd not have 50 000 people forming an army. If the majority felt intense amounts of revulsion at that decision and a whole heap of other shit you'd have 500 000 storming parliament.

 

[Enteebee]

If it's mutually beneficial then it will happen anyway. To take an example, property disputes generally find resolution through a mutually agreed and respected valuer, and I don't think you've made a case for why a generally accepted, private equivalent of the High Court would not come into being.

I think it very well may... as I feel most government if privatised would eventually come back. I'm not sure what the difference is between a supreme private authority and a supreme state authority. Unless you just mean that plaintiffs will have to pay to have their cases heard etc and no taxes used for its formation, which could be made true even with our state judiciary.

I think the thing which makes it a mechanism of the state is its absolute authority.

EDIT: Military coups happen all the time in countries with unstable governments/dissatisfied people. If the majority of people respected the system under which Hardie were convicted or let off, then you'd not have 50 000 people forming an army. If the majority felt intense amounts of revulsion at that decision and a whole heap of other shit you'd have 500 000 storming parliament.

But why should we need 50,000 people feeling that level of revulsion with the government? If one person is killed off by my government I'm not going to go getting rid of it, but I would much prefer a government which doesn't go killing people off.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

How do you define 'the state'

The Marxist definition and analysis of the state is quite different to that of bourgeois political science (ie. the Weberian definition) and also to that of the Anarchists.

To make this quick I will quote from the Marxist Internet Archive Encyclopaedia entry for the "state":

The state is the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule. Thus, it is only in a society which is divided between hostile social classes that the state exists:

“The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.” [Lenin, 1917, The State and Revolution]
​

Since the objective of socialism is the self-emancipation of the working class and the overthrow of capitalism, the first task of the proletariat is conquest of state power:

“the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.” [Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2]
​

The machinery of violence that the bourgeoisie has selected, trained and appointed for the purpose of hoodwinking and crushing the workers can hardly be of much use to the working class however:

“the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes. ... The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.” [Marx, Civil War in France]
​

While the conquest of state power is necessary to prevent the capitalists from restoring capitalism and to create the conditions for a genuinely free association of producers:

“Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.” [Critique of the Gotha Program, Chapter 4]
​

The workers’ state is however quite a different kind of thing as compared to the bourgeois state. The whole point is to do away with the exploitation of person by person and do away with class divisions, and do away, therefore, with any need for a state:

“When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not “abolished”. It withers away.” [Frederick Engels Anti-Dühring, Part III, Ch. 2]
​

The entry also goes on with the Historical Development of the State, Bourgeois theory of the State and finally The State and Socialism.

So to sum up. So long as an institution or organ acts or allows for the perpetuation of class rule it is a state. In the modern world public administrative functions such as in your example of the regulation of farming techniques (or to give another the planning, construction and maintaining of roads and railways) are incorporated into the functioning of the state, but they are not state functions in so far as they are concerned with matters of public administration as opposed to the perpetuation of class rule.

As such when Marxists suggest the "withering away of the state" they do not mean that withering away of all forms of public administration and planning. Rather they mean the merely the abolition of those functions of class rule. Engels puts it neatly in his essay On Authority:

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state,http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1970/xx/state.html#nl and with it political authority, will disappear [scomparirano] as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the authoritarian political state be abolished [abolito] at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution?
​

If you are interested in knowing more I would highly suggest Hal Draper's The Death of the State in Marx and Engels.

If this does not sufficiently answer your query feel free to ask any other questions.

 

[Trefoil]

The above poster does not represent my point of view.

That's refreshing to know, and I'm glad you pointed it out. With people like zstar 'advocating' the cause of libertarianism, it's hard not to write you all off as unfeeling extremists.

 

[withoutaface]

I'd argue that the ultimate goal of Rothbard's work is to establish a society free of coercion against anybody who is not convicted of violating another's person, which this would seemingly achieve.

The question of governments coming back is a valid one, but consider that the abolition of the state had to occur somehow (logically it would seem that could occur by a referendum to abolish the consitution, or similar), meaning that the population had lived through smaller and smaller government until finally they became convinced that no government was a desirable outcome. No system (or lack thereof) can stand while people are upset with it, obviously, but once society got there (not easy at all) it'd be just as hard to go back.

 

[Enteebee]

I'd argue that the ultimate goal of Rothbard's work is to establish a society free of coercion against anybody who is not convicted of violating another's person, which this would seemingly achieve.

So do you personally think there can be no 'just' coercion? What if I am coercing you to do something which leaves you with qualitative better freedom? Was it really better for me to let you be and enjoy some some qualitatively worse, but quantitatively greater freedom?

No system (or lack thereof) can stand while people are upset with it, obviously, but once society got there (not easy at all) it'd be just as hard to go back.

The reason for my supposing the re-emergence of government is that there appears little difference between having a supreme private authority and a supreme public authority. Is there any? If a supreme public authority is the likely outcome of this system of arbitration (a private high court) then what difference does it make?

 

[withoutaface]

So do you personally think there can be no 'just' coercion? What if I am coercing you to do something which leaves you with qualitative better freedom? Was it really better for me to let you be and enjoy some some qualitatively worse, but quantitatively greater freedom?



The reason for my supposing the re-emergence of government is that there appears little difference between having a supreme private authority and a supreme public authority. Is there any? If a supreme public authority is the likely outcome of this system of arbitration (a private high court) then what difference does it make?

It'd be about breaking the perception that taxation and other restraints on trade are necessary for society to function, and thus seeing the end of them.

EDIT: Chadd: My personal views aren't what I'm arguing here, I'm advocating anarchy for the lulz. However, I'd argue that a person of rational mind has a better idea about what they'd consider to be 'greater' freedom than the State. Alternatively, I should start walking up to blokes drinking smirnoffs, smacking them across the face, then giving them a beer. I mean, I'd be happier with a beer in front of me...

 

[Trefoil]

I think that's the fundamental difference between libertarians and social democrats: libertarians believe there's no such thing as just coercion, social democrats believe there is.

As a social democrat, my reasoning is straightforward: humans practice bounded rationality, and even if they didn't, no heierarchy of rights can maximise all at once, thus balance must be sought which places different weightings on various rights, and optimises accordingly.

 

[withoutaface]

I think that's the fundamental difference between libertarians and social democrats: libertarians believe there's no such thing as just coercion, social democrats believe there is.

As a social democrat, my reasoning is straightforward: humans practice bounded rationality, and even if they didn't, no heierarchy of rights can maximise all at once, thus balance must be sought which places different weightings on various rights, and optimises accordingly.

It's about different conceptions of rights. Social democrats are all about positive rights and libertarians generally reject those out of hand.

 

[Enteebee]

It'd be about breaking the perception that taxation and other restraints on trade are necessary for society to function, and thus seeing the end of them.

I'd disagree with these goals, but even if they were your goals... getting rid of the state's judiciary seems to be throwing away the baby with the bath water just to get the baby back again.

EDIT: Chadd: My personal views aren't what I'm arguing here, I'm advocating anarchy for the lulz. However, I'd argue that a person of rational mind has a better idea about what they'd consider to be 'greater' freedom than the State.

You can be perfectly rational and not know what is best for you simply as time is in scarce supply and to allow someone to repeat a past failure seems to me to lead to less qualitive freedom than if you stopped them.

Other obvious forms of just coercion would be taking money from someone who earned it through birthright and giving it to those who were born into poverty.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

If those mini-councils wanted to they could tell the voters to pee off

Sorry but that's just not possible considering the most essential characteristic of the role of a representative of a workers council is that they are immediately recallable. Unlike a parliamentary representative if a workers council delegate (also know as a soviet deputy) was to go against the wishes of their constituents they would be replaced immediately.

because they monopolise that certain product and they are the ones that decide if what they produced and how much they produced is appropriate,

How this logically follows from your above premise, I have no idea.

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.

Oh my, the horrors of democracy indeed! Maybe you wou

Furthermore how are you going to prevent hoarding and those who take more than their fair share?

In so far as that greater than "fair share" does not result in the generation of a scarcity in the product in question there is no problem. Otherwise the general rule of "from each according to his ability to each according to his work/labour" will be implemented.

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.

The means by which bribery is made possible will be eliminated. Instead of money or "labour vouchers" modern technological development has made forms such as energy accounting and labour credit which do not involved a physical medium and are non-transferable, being destroyed on their use to withdraw goods (unlike money which circulates).

How will you ever produce enough if you know there's no real reason to work that hard?

We have been over this already. Please flick back and find the relevant info yourself. I'm sick and tired of typing the same damn thing out.

How could you just measure ones labour equally by hours when one person may have a more dangerous and harder job than somebody else?

Indeed you have correctly identified a major issue in the "labour-voucher" question. The answers and possible solutions to this problem vary and I do not have the time nor the patience to go into them now.

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

No but it's foolish to resume the same arguement.

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.

Christ almighty! That's not what I'm trying to do! I'm trying to show the foolishness of the arguement adopted by all previous ruling classes (and our own today) in assuming their current mode of production as being permanent and not merely a historical stage which will pass away.

 

[jb_nc]

so if we dont submit are we killed

 

[nikolas]

A man borrows another s boat, he uses this boat to catch fish, who is entitled to the fish, the boat owner or the fisherman?