NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a brief FAQ about communism. There are so many misconceptions about communism that it isn't even funny. I felt that in order to debate against proponents of capitalism, it is necessary to dispell some misconceptions.

---General---

Q: What is communism?

A: It is an economic system where markets and forms of exchange such as money are non-existant. In communism, social classes are absent and the means of production are owned and managed by society.

Q: Isn't communism a dictatorship?

A: No, genuine communism lacks social classes and the existance of a government is incompatable with it. The only true form of communism is anarcho-communism.

Q: What is Marxism?

A: Marxism is a theory that communism can be achieved by using an authoritarian socialist intermediate stage, known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. It has consistantly failed to reach communism, though, as you should know.

Q: Doesn't communism ban ownership?

A: Only of things that everyone uses. Items used by one person are owned by that person. Factories, by contrast, are owned by the people who consume the products as well as those who operate the factory.

Q: Doesn't communism violate human nature?

A: Not unless it isn't human nature to respect those who share and contribute. Once wealth is abolished, it won't be possible to slack off without being noticed. Who would you be more willing to share with, someone who shares readily or someone who hoards things?

---Economics---

Q: What is a gift economy?

A: A gift economy is where gift exchange rather than money or trade is the basis of the economy. In communism, everything is free. If you give something away, you can still survive. Since those who share the most would have a reputation for sharing, it is in your best interest to share since that encourages others to share with you.

Q: What motivation is there to work in communism?

A: Work in communism is greatly reduced. The work that remains is motivated by the desire for social esteem and reputation. Much as people in today's society seek wealth because it is prestigious to be rich, people in communism will want to be reputed to be generous and productive.

Q: How is work reduced?

A: By getting rid of useless jobs like royalty or telemarketing. There are numerous jobs we don't need. Then there will also be former unemployed people being able to do something since profit isn't important. Also, since workers have a say in managing the means of production, they will make it much more enjoyable.

Q: What about people who don't care about reputation?

A: They will lose the respect of others and would receive less gifts. In the type of communism proposed by most anarcho-communists, they wouldn't lose access to the means of life, but they would have to go without things like DVDS that aren't needed to survive.

Q: What does "from each according to need, to each according to ability" mean?

A: It means that members of a commune agree to contribute what they can and in return receive what they need to survive. This works through a free distribution system, such as a communal store.

Q: Is communism a natural human economic system?

A: No, but capitalism is...

I'd argue that deep down, neither is really natural- Capitalism revolves around the exchange of green paper, digital numbers, and round pieces of metal while human instinct would tend towards a Capitalist system using only bartering. Well, maybe coins would be worth something in an economy based on human instinct, but only because they're pretty.

I'd argue that deep down, neither is really natural- Capitalism revolves around the exchange of green paper, digital numbers, and round pieces of metal while human instinct would tend towards a Capitalist system using only bartering. Well, maybe coins would be worth something in an economy based on human instinct, but only beacuse they're pretty.
Capitalism doesn't have to have currency to work...

Neither is natural, OK. But that's because civilization itself is unnatural.

Neither is natural, OK. But that's because civilization itself is unnatural.
Hmm...that's a good point...
But what do you think of this statement:
Capitalism is a much more natural form of economy for humans than communism is.

Q: What is Marxism?

A: Marxism is a theory that communism can be achieved by using an authoritarian socialist intermediate stage, known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. It has consistantly failed to reach communism, though, as you should know.

Totalitarian socialist intermediate stage, you mean. And the fact that anybody would start a thread in defense of such an odious man and an abominable system as communism is abhorrent.

A: Marxism is a theory that communism can be achieved by using an authoritarian socialist intermediate stage, known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. It has consistantly failed to reach communism, though, as you should know.

Massive misrepresentation of what the dictatorship of the proletariat actually means. Fucking back that up (without reference to Lenin, Trotsky or Stalin, none of whom were Marxists). Use POUM if you want.

Totalitarian socialist intermediate stage, you mean. And the fact that anybody would start a thread in defense of such an odious man and an abominable system as communism is abhorrent.
Letila's reply: I'm not a Marxist.

Communism is a lie, perpetuated by the deceived. It has been demonstrated inferior in every way, multiple times.

http://www.protestwarrior.com/signs.php?sign=4

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Commies belive that if they keep trying eventually it will work out differently.

Hence the almost spam-like nature of these types of threads.

Totalitarian socialist intermediate stage, you mean. And the fact that anybody would start a thread in defense of such an odious man and an abominable system as communism is abhorrent.Same challenge to you Roach-Busters. Point to specific quotes from Marx that suggest he'd have supported totalitarian policies.

Totalitarian socialist intermediate stage, you mean. And the fact that anybody would start a thread in defense of such an odious man and an abominable system as communism is abhorrent.

I don't support it at all. I said that it has consistantly failed. I am an anarcho-communist.

To sum it up: NOT ALL COMMUNISTS ARE MARXISTS!!!

Capitalism is less natural because it is based on the abstract and artificial concept of value.

Using peer pressure and public opinion to make people work is still coercion.

Q: What is a gift economy?

A: A gift economy is where gift exchange rather than money or trade is the basis of the economy. In communism, everything is free. If you give something away, you can still survive. Since those who share the most would have a reputation for sharing, it is in your best interest to share since that encourages others to share with you.
Just because there is no currency doesn't mean it is communism. The situation you've described in which Person A gets shared with more because he has a reputation for sharing sounds pretty capitalistic to me. What about the people who for some reason can't share? Do they get shared with?

Q: What motivation is there to work in communism?

A: Work in communism is greatly reduced. The work that remains is motivated by the desire for social esteem and reputation. Much as people in today's society seek wealth because it is prestigious to be rich, people in communism will want to be reputed to be generous and productive.
You're really describing capitalism without currency more than any form of communism...

Q: How is work reduced?

A: By getting rid of useless jobs like royalty or telemarketing. There are numerous jobs we don't need. Then there will also be former unemployed people being able to do something since profit isn't important. Also, since workers have a say in managing the means of production, they will make it much more enjoyable.
1) Royalty and telemarketing could be eliminated in capitalism too.
2) You've already argued that profit is important, just not in terms of currency.

Q: What about people who don't care about reputation?

A: They will lose the respect of others and would receive less gifts. In the type of communism proposed by most anarcho-communists, they wouldn't lose access to the means of life, but they would have to go without things like DVDS that aren't needed to survive.
Sounds capitalistic to me.

Q: What does "from each according to need, to each according to ability" mean?

A: It means that members of a commune agree to contribute what they can and in return receive what they need to survive. This works through a free distribution system, such as a communal store.
You got the quote wrong...because...that quote how you have it says that the more able people get a lot more than the less able, which isn't communistic.

I don't support it at all. I said that it has consistantly failed. I am an anarcho-communist.

To sum it up: NOT ALL COMMUNISTS ARE MARXISTS!!!

Capitalism is less natural because it is based on the abstract and artificial concept of value.

Erm, I told you so?

Letila's reply: I'm not a Marxist.

Anyways...your form of communism which you propose is...based on an abstract concept of value too...

Massive misrepresentation of what the dictatorship of the proletariat actually means. Fucking back that up (without reference to Lenin, Trotsky or Stalin, none of whom were Marxists). Use POUM if you want.

What else could it mean besides a dictatorship controlled by proletariats? There isn't any room for misrepresentation here. Besides, all forms of government are bad. It wouldn't matter if the DOP was nicer than its name implied, since it's a state, it isn't good.

Communism is a lie, perpetuated by the deceived. It has been demonstrated inferior in every way, multiple times.

Hardly. There are numerous ways in which communism is better than capitalism. Didn't you read the thread at all?

To sum it up: NOT ALL COMMUNISTS ARE MARXISTS!!!
And none of the systems you constantly point to were either. You misrepresent Marxism as dishonestly as the capitalist press misrepresent anarchism.

Hardly. There are numerous ways in which communism is better than capitalism. Didn't you read the thread at all?
so...it has proved itself better than capitalism? When?

And none of the systems you constantly point to were either. You misrepresent Marxism as dishonestly as the capitalist press misrepresent anarchism.
uh...he isn't a Marxist.

Anyways...you're form of communism which you propose is...based on an abstract concept of value too...

Where?

Just because there is no currency doesn't mean it is communism. The situation you've described in which Person A gets shared with more because he has a reputation for sharing sounds pretty capitalistic to me. What about the people who for some reason can't share? Do they get shared with?

That's why there is also a communal store to make sure that basic needs are met. Capitalism isn't defined by differences in social esteem but by genuine class distinctions based on ownership of the means of production.

You're really describing capitalism without currency more than any form of communism...

Communism doesn't mean that everyone is completely interchangible.

1) Royalty and telemarketing could be eliminated in capitalism too.

They exist now and would be gone in anarcho-communism, that was my point. It is unlikely that telemarketing will go away in capitalism as its existance is due it being profitable.


2) You've already argued that profit is important, just not in terms of currency.

Profit is in the form of currency. It is a concept found only in capitalism.

Using peer pressure and public opinion to make people work is still coercion.

They're necessary evils. Compared to the force used to "protect" property "rights", they are mild.

And none And none of the systems you constantly point to were either. You misrepresent Marxism as dishonestly as the capitalist press misrepresent anarchism.

Fine, but I am not a Marxist because it favors a dictatorship, the worst kind of state there is, to reach communism. I'm sorry, but no state, particularly a dictatorship, is acceptable to me.

so...it has proved itself better than capitalism? When?

Let's see, more freedom for workers, no poverty, free distribution, etc.

That's why there is also a communal store to make sure that basic needs are met. Capitalism isn't defined by differences in social esteem but by genuine class distinctions based on ownership of the means of production.



Communism doesn't mean that everyone is completely interchangible.



They exist now and would be gone in anarcho-communism, that was my point. It is unlikely that telemarketing will go away in capitalism as its existance is due it being profitable.




Profit is in the form of currency. It is a concept found only in capitalism.
Should I start a Capitalism FAQ so you better understand what IDEAL capitalism is about since you are comparing ideal communism to real capitalism. It's not really a fare comparison?

uh...he isn't a Marxist.No, I am Opal. Hence where the disagreement lies. ;) He constantly conflates Marxism with Leninism despite the fact that they're polar opposites.

Letilia, you misunderstand Marx's use of the word "dictatorship". He merely means by it that, as the majority, the working class will control political power. A Marxist republic would need to contain the five conditons:

universal suffrage; election of all officials whether 'administrative, judicial and educational' (Engels) or, military, administrative, political' (Marx); officials to receive 'workmens' wages'; revocability 'at short term' (Marx) or 'at any time' (Engels); and 'strictly responsible' to the electorate enforced by all delegates being 'bound by the formal instructions of his constituents' (Marx).

A Marxist state would be 'no longer a state in the true sense of the word' (Engels) because it would be in the process of abolishing itself from day one. That's the difference between us, I don't believe the state will suddenly disapear as if by magic.

My communism question is:

Who would be dumb enough to think that up?

Where?

The value of public opinion and reputation

Profit is in the form of currency. It is a concept found only in capitalism.

Found in feudalism too.

They're necessary evils. Compared to the force used to "protect" property "rights", they are mild.

They are still coercive. It is just as bad as taxes. Instead of, "pay up or you'll be jailed" you have "work, or no one will like you"

Fine, but I am not a Marxist because it favors a dictatorship, the worst kind of state there is, to reach communism. I'm sorry, but no state, particularly a dictatorship, is acceptable to me.

We agree on something. Personally, I like Bakunins critisisms of Marxism.

Q: What does "from each according to need, to each according to ability" mean?

A: It means that members of a commune agree to contribute what they can and in return receive what they need to survive. This works through a free distribution system, such as a communal store.

Think about this: in such a system, how long would it be before someone realizes that they can find ways around being productive? I mean, look at it this way: if someone is injured, he cannot work as much as someone in perfect health. If someone has obligations with his children, or other obligations in general, how can he possibly work as hard as someone who can be at work whenever he wants? There are loopholes-isn't it possible that people quickly become unable to be as productive as possible? That'll grind the majority of production in any factory almost to zero.
Or, riddle me this: what constitutes need? Do I 'need' food? Do I 'need' clothes? Does my daughter 'need' braces? Do I 'need' a new car? Do I 'need' a new house? I can imagine that, just as with people becoming unable to do work, people suddenly 'needing' a lot more than they used to.

This concept may need a little work. I would advise that you go read some Ayn Rand, in particular Atlas Shrugged, for some insight into the financial aspects of political systems.

The value of public opinion and reputation

That isn't the same as the totally artificial value of monetary value.

They are still coercive. It is just as bad as taxes. Instead of, "pay up or you'll be jailed" you have "work, or no one will like you"

In every society, there will be people who don't like you. In capitalism, poverty lowers public opinion about you and wealth increases it. Doesn't that make capitalism just as bad in that regard?

A Marxist state would be 'no longer a state in the true sense of the word' (Engels) because it would be in the process of abolishing itself from day one. That's the difference between us, I don't believe the state will suddenly disapear as if by magic.

I have never heard of any class with power over other classes abolishing itself voluntarily. Black people had to oppose segregation for it to be ended. It wasn't just ended voluntarily.

In every society, there will be people who don't like you. In capitalism, poverty lowers public opinion about you and wealth increases it. Doesn't that make capitalism just as bad in that regard?
Just as bad? Possibly.

Worse? Most definitely not.

That isn't the same as the totally artificial value of monetary value.

How? Both are abstract concepts. The only difference is that you can count one.

In every society, there will be people who don't like you.

I never said otherwise. But there is a difference between a few arseholes not liking, and utilising public opinion to force you to work.

In capitalism, poverty lowers public opinion about you and wealth increases it.

Not nessaserily (sic), the 'novue riche' are just (if not more so) as dispised in some circles as the poor.

Doesn't that make capitalism just as bad in that regard?

Yes, but I am not a capitalist.

I have never heard of any class with power over other classes abolishing itself voluntarily. Black people had to oppose segregation for it to be ended. It wasn't just ended voluntarily.

The British aristocracy effectively did this.

Think about this: in such a system, how long would it be before someone realizes that they can find ways around being productive? I mean, look at it this way: if someone is injured, he cannot work as much as someone in perfect health. If someone has obligations with his children, or other obligations in general, how can he possibly work as hard as someone who can be at work whenever he wants? There are loopholes-isn't it possible that people quickly become unable to be as productive as possible? That'll grind the majority of production in any factory almost to zero.

Work in anarcho-communism would be substancially reduced. Once the inefficiencies of capitalism are removed, workhours will drop and once workers control the workplace, working conditions will improve.

Or, riddle me this: what constitutes need? Do I 'need' food? Do I 'need' clothes? Does my daughter 'need' braces? Do I 'need' a new car? Do I 'need' a new house? I can imagine that, just as with people becoming unable to do work, people suddenly 'needing' a lot more than they used to.

I suppose it depends on how common they are and how important to survive. Food would be, basic clothes would also. A house would be more complicated, though.

This concept may need a little work. I would advise that you go read some Ayn Rand, in particular Atlas Shrugged, for some insight into the financial aspects of political systems.

That élitist authoritarian! Never. Her selfishness and obsession with power are nothing to be emulated or taken seriously.

1) Letila isn't open to hear what the other side has to say.

2) Currency is a symbolic value, not an artificial one.

How? Both are abstract concepts. The only difference is that you can count one.

But the communist one is more obvious. The capitalist concept is much more artificial.

Not nessaserily (sic), the 'novue riche' are just (if not more so) as dispised in some circles as the poor.

True, but that doesn't change the fact that social pressure also exists in capitalism.

Yes, but I am not a capitalist.

I thought you were.

The British aristocracy effectively did this.

For one thing, they were replaced by a new social class, so that doesn't really show that Marxism can eliminate social classes.

The British aristocracy effectively did this.
No they haven't. A great deal of wealth is still concentrated in the hands of the landed gentry over here- see Burke's Peerage for details.

1) Letila isn't open to hear what the other side has to say.

I have heard what the other side says and don't accept it.

2) Currency is a symbolic value, not an artificial one.

It is very artificial. Does anything like it occur naturally? No.

No they haven't. A great deal of wealth is still concentrated in the hands of the landed gentry over here- see Burke's Peerage for details.

Well, all the bright folks left for the other side of the pond - where the indians had graciously donated huge tracks of land to us

I have heard what the other side says and don't accept it.



It is very artificial. Does anything like it occur naturally? No.


Occur naturally? Does plastic? Your clothes? Your computer?

It is very artificial. Does anything like it occur naturally? No.

Eh...it represents something real...which, I guess means it is still artificial, but it is representative of something real, therefore it, to me, is acceptable. It means I can give a neighbor parishable food items in exchange for this symbolic paper and then when my farm goes bad next year and his didn't, I can exchange the symbolic, meaningless paper for some of his excess food. Could you do that without currency? You could do it on a system of trust, sure, but then you'd have to get what you needed next time around from the person you lent to or set yourself in a "debt" with someone else.

Eh...it represents something real...which, I guess means it is still artificial, but it is representative of something real, therefore it, to me, is acceptable.

I disagree. Monetary value isn't real.

I disagree. Monetary value isn't real.
Did you read my whole post or just what you quoted?

I disagree. Monetary value isn't real.

What...the...fuck

A: Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man, communism is the opposite.
hehee!
Letila let me say you really don't know anything about what communism REALLY is.

A: Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man, communism is the opposite.
hehee!
Letila let me say you really don't know anything about what communism REALLY is.
And you really don't know anything about what Capitalism is...

EDIT: ...unless I missed some sarcasm...

Did you read my whole post or just what you quoted?

Yes, I did read your whole post.

Yes, I did read your whole post.
And you noted that I agreed that it has no "real" value, but it has a symbolic value? And you failed to respond to the defense I gave for the necessity of currency...?

And you really don't know anything about what Capitalism is...

EDIT: ...unless I missed some sarcasm...

You missed it a little. don't worry.

You missed it a little. don't worry.
Okay.

And you noted that I agreed that it has no "real" value, but it has a symbolic value? And you failed to respond to the defense I gave for the necessity of currency...?

Oh, sorry.

Oh, sorry.
"Oh, sorry." doesn't defend or explain your continueing opposition to my side despite reading my defense of my side of the argument, so until further notice, I'll take that as a note of agreeance between the two of us (the first one at that...)

"Oh, sorry." doesn't defend or explain your continueing opposition to my side despite reading my defense of my side of the argument, so until further notice, I'll take that as a note of agreeance between the two of us (the first one at that...)Or you can just join the exclusive "people who Letila doesen't even try to tackle the arguments of" club. ;)

HAHA, you guys can't even decide what value is!!

Letila = thread deserter.

Letila = thread deserter.

Fine, I concede your point.

Fine, I concede your point.
Then how can you still defend anarcho-communism?

Then how can you still defend anarcho-communism?

I was talking about your point on monetary value. The naturalness of money is far from the only argument about communism.

I disagree in a few places.

Q: What is a gift economy?

A: A gift economy is where gift exchange rather than money or trade is the basis of the economy. In communism, everything is free. If you give something away, you can still survive. Since those who share the most would have a reputation for sharing, it is in your best interest to share since that encourages others to share with you.

In Communism everything is given to you by an organisation under the name of a government according to your needs.

Q: What motivation is there to work in communism?

A: Work in communism is greatly reduced. The work that remains is motivated by the desire for social esteem and reputation. Much as people in today's society seek wealth because it is prestigious to be rich, people in communism will want to be reputed to be generous and productive.

Work in a communism is greatly increased. Firstly for the reasons there and secondly because Communism requires the initiative of everyone to do what they do to the best of their ability to aid all of society.

Q: What about people who don't care about reputation?

A: They will lose the respect of others and would receive less gifts. In the type of communism proposed by most anarcho-communists, they wouldn't lose access to the means of life, but they would have to go without things like DVDS that aren't needed to survive.
This breaks the ideals of communism in that you will now have classes; those who work hard and have gifts, those who don't and don't have gifts.

Totalitarian socialist intermediate stage, you mean. And the fact that anybody would start a thread in defense of such an odious man and an abominable system as communism is abhorrent.
There never has been a Communist state. There have been Totalitarian, there haven't even been Totalitarian Socialists states, they're all lies.

Communism nor anything close to it HAVE EVER been present in this world on a national stage. This is because:
The Church, making us nothing more than worthless animals and has been keeping us as such for a long time
Communism requires it's existance to be global

Below is an illustration of what would happen if Marx was unfortunate enough to run into me:

:eek: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:

:upyours: Up yours, Marx! :upyours:

Letila, let's suppose that human beings are brain-washed to forget about self-value, etc. and the communism that you've described takes over the entire world. What incentive is there for technological progress to be made? Who would want to do the research if they're not really going to get anything in the way of credit for it?

Letila, let's suppose that human beings are brain-washed to forget about self-value, etc. and the communism that you've described takes over the entire world. What incentive is there for technological progress to be made? Who would want to do the research if they're not really going to get anything in the way of credit for it?
When they make a discovery, they will improve their quality of life as well as everyone else's.

When they make a discovery, they will improve their quality of life as well as everyone else's.

does anyone honestly believe we would be as technologically advanced as we are today if anarcho-communism had been the rule for the past 100 years?

I think not

When they make a discovery, they will improve their quality of life as well as everyone else's.
So any discovery made benefits all people completely equally? Dissolving the competiveness dissolves the expediency of science.

Letila, let's suppose that human beings are brain-washed to forget about self-value, etc. and the communism that you've described takes over the entire world.

Not quite accurate. Communism doesn't mean complete selflessness unless money is the only measure of yourself.

What incentive is there for technological progress to be made? Who would want to do the research if they're not really going to get anything in the way of credit for it?

I personally don't believe technological "progress" is necessarily a good thing. I think the fixation on technology is to a large extent an outgrowth of the consumerist mindset of capitalism. If people want technology, they will make it. The incentive is the benefits of the new tech and the fame associated with inventing. Why do you remember Thomas Edison? Because he invented so much, not because of how much money he made.

In Communism everything is given to you by an organisation under the name of a government according to your needs.

In authoritarian socialism, that's so. Communism isn't the same thing.

Work in a communism is greatly increased. Firstly for the reasons there and secondly because Communism requires the initiative of everyone to do what they do to the best of their ability to aid all of society.

No, capitalism wastes a lot in the name of profit. Once it goes, work would be greatly reduced.

This breaks the ideals of communism in that you will now have classes; those who work hard and have gifts, those who don't and don't have gifts.

Those who have gifts don't have militaries at their disposal and can't force those without gifts into wage labor. They aren't social classes except in the very loosest sense possible.

There never has been a Communist state. There have been Totalitarian, there haven't even been Totalitarian Socialists states, they're all lies.

You are right here. Government officials form a social class, so there can be no government in communism.

does anyone honestly believe we would be as technologically advanced as we are today if anarcho-communism had been the rule for the past 100 years?

I think not
Communism requires a global, atheistic unification as gods cause problems with hate etc. We wouldn't have certain advances that originated in war but other technologies would have popped up because they wouldn't have been driven into the ground didn't they wouldn't make a massive profit.

So any discovery made benefits all people completely equally? Dissolving the competiveness dissolves the expediency of science.
Yes, any discovery would benefit everyone. Perhaps not equally, since a cure for a disease wouldn't effect everyone. But if I discovered a new fuel source, everyone would benefit in a communism, not just those that are privileged, like in today's system. There being no competitivness is irrelevant, because anything you do would benefit you in public favour or in quality of life, because it would also effect everyone.

Hm...
I think that even in a supposed communism, there could be a battle waged between the haves and have-nots so to speek...


Imagine this situation: Commie A and his family for some reason are able to single-handedly farm enough food for 100 persons. Commie A and his family are good friends with Commie B, C, D, and E, who are all in the exact same situation as Commie A. Now, Commies A, B, C, D, and E share their food with 100 person who, in return, pledge their allegiance as soldiers to protect the farms. I mean, why not, that's a fair trade of right? Commie A and his family are excellent farmers, but they need their garden protected from animals and such to ensure the productivity of the farms. So they hire so to speak 100 fellow commies to protect the farm. Now, Commie A, B, C, D, and E all organize and tell their 500 soldiers (100 per family) to go secure even more farmland for them as each of the farmer families just expanded the size of their family and now are capable to cultivate even more farmland, but to get this extra farmland, the private armies have to take land from other families, and guess what, all of the sudden Anarcho-Communism starts looking a little bit more like feudalism, which isn't communistic and definitely isn't anarchistic. Now you can dismiss this as an outlandish, impossible, hypothetical situation if you want, but I honestly think it is highly likely to happen. Humans are power hungry.

Communism requires a global, atheistic unification as gods cause problems with hate etc. We wouldn't have certain advances that originated in war but other technologies would have popped up because they wouldn't have been driven into the ground didn't they wouldn't make a massive profit.




I'm at a complete loss for words...blood is shooting out of my nose in bewilderment

I personally don't believe technological "progress" is necessarily a good thing. I think the fixation on technology is to a large extent an outgrowth of the consumerist mindset of capitalism. If people want technology, they will make it. The incentive is the benefits of the new tech and the fame associated with inventing. Why do you remember Thomas Edison? Because he invented so much, not because of how much money he made.

Communism requires an advanced, indutrialized global nation to function.

In authoritarian socialism, that's so. Communism isn't the same thing.

You have said yourself something relating to always having the neccessities, it requires some form of infrastructure to distribute those, that's what a 'government' would do, distribute resources evenly.

No, capitalism wastes a lot in the name of profit. Once it goes, work would be greatly reduced.
Yes capitalism wastes time in the name of profit, once that is removed we will have more time to focus solely on production and results.

Those who have gifts don't have militaries at their disposal and can't force those without gifts into wage labor. They aren't social classes except in the very loosest sense possible.
They are social classes since they now control more wealth. Perhaps they aren't distinct, but their will still be a poor class that receives few gifts, a middle and a rich class. The rich class will want to get richer and thus communism will be replaced by capitalism.

Opal Isle:
The problem is then that those soldiers are thus privately owned. There Communism has fallen apart. In a Communism the soldiers wouldn't pledge allegiance to the farmers, since the farmers do not directly give food to the soldiers, they give it to infrastructure that distributes them.

Snaggletooth:
Sarcasm or incomprehension? To clarify, you said that if Communism had been dominant for the past 100 years we wouldn't be as technologically advanced. Under Communism there is no war, since it requires the entire globe to be unified; because there is no war some technologies developed for war would never have been discovered. Others still would have appeared, and completely new ones would have appeared. This is because many things are not funded because they aren't as profitable as other current technologies.

Opal Isle:
The problem is then that those soldiers are thus privately owned. There Communism has fallen apart. In a Communism the soldiers wouldn't pledge allegiance to the farmers, since the farmers do not directly give food to the soldiers, they give it to infrastructure that distributes them.

...Letila is preaching about Anarcho-communism...which can't have a central infrastructure...because...that's kind of...not anarchistic...
Also, let's suppose I change the situation slightly. What if they could farm enough to feed (what the infrastructure would give to) 100 person, but they hire only 50 soldiers, therefore, those soldiers have a reason to pledge an allegiance to the farmer, as they get much better, bigger meals...

Under Communism there is no war, since it requires the entire globe to be unified
...which is one of the main reasons I know that communism is impossible...

Communism requires an advanced, indutrialized global nation to function.

That might be true for some political/economic systems, such as technocracy, but communism isn't one of them. Many of the earliest societies are believed to have been essentially anarcho-communist.

You have said yourself something relating to always having the neccessities, it requires some form of infrastructure to distribute those, that's what a 'government' would do, distribute resources evenly.

Not unless a confederation of directly democratic communes and soviets (worker councils) with no real coersive power counts as a government.

Yes capitalism wastes time in the name of profit, once that is removed we will have more time to focus solely on production and results.

Once that happens, it is no longer necessary to work for long hours in poor working conditions.

They are social classes since they now control more wealth. Perhaps they aren't distinct, but their will still be a poor class that receives few gifts, a middle and a rich class. The rich class will want to get richer and thus communism will be replaced by capitalism.

The differences would be nothing compared to current class distinctions where the CEO earns as much as 500 times more than the lowest paid worker.

Imagine this situation: Commie A and his family for some reason are able to single-handedly farm enough food for 100 persons. Commie A and his family are good friends with Commie B, C, D, and E, who are all in the exact same situation as Commie A. Now, Commies A, B, C, D, and E share their food with 100 person who, in return, pledge their allegiance as soldiers to protect the farms. I mean, why not, that's a fair trade of right? Commie A and his family are excellent farmers, but they need their garden protected from animals and such to ensure the productivity of the farms. So they hire so to speak 100 fellow commies to protect the farm. Now, Commie A, B, C, D, and E all organize and tell their 500 soldiers (100 per family) to go secure even more farmland for them as each of the farmer families just expanded the size of their family and now are capable to cultivate even more farmland, but to get this extra farmland, the private armies have to take land from other families, and guess what, all of the sudden Anarcho-Communism starts looking a little bit more like feudalism, which isn't communistic and definitely isn't anarchistic. Now you can dismiss this as an outlandish, impossible, hypothetical situation if you want, but I honestly think it is highly likely to happen. Humans are power hungry.

Then the other anarchists would organize militias to defend against such an attempt.

Yes capitalism wastes time in the name of profit, once that is removed we will have more time to focus solely on production and results.

Snaggletooth:
Sarcasm or incomprehension? To clarify, you said that if Communism had been dominant for the past 100 years we wouldn't be as technologically advanced. Under Communism there is no war, since it requires the entire globe to be unified; because there is no war some technologies developed for war would never have been discovered. Others still would have appeared, and completely new ones would have appeared. This is because many things are not funded because they aren't as profitable as other current technologies.

If we were all free-trade capitalists, there would be no war. War is caused by governments.

Profit is gained by creating goods quickly and cheaply (production and results)

Don't pretend to be an expert on something you know nothing about [business]

Then the other anarchists would organize militias to defend against such an attempt.
So, you admit that anarcho-communism would indeed evolve into feudalism?

So, you admit that anarcho-communism would indeed evolve into feudalism?

No, they would stop an attempt to take control like that.

No, they would stop an attempt to take control like that.
They would attempt to stop it. There is no gaurantee they would succeed.

Additionally, it isn't that outlandish to assume that similar private armies would be formed by other farmers that way there are wars between armies, which...even if the initial army loses, the feudalism thing still goes on...

...Letila is preaching about Anarcho-communism...which can't have a central infrastructure...because...that's kind of...not anarchistic...
I'm not. I prefer a more organised form of communism with central infrastructure.

Also, let's suppose I change the situation slightly. What if they could farm enough to feed (what the infrastructure would give to) 100 person, but they hire only 50 soldiers, therefore, those soldiers have a reason to pledge an allegiance to the farmer, as they get much better, bigger meals...
That would be theft if the farmer's withheld some of their crops to hire soldiers.

That might be true for some political/economic systems, such as technocracy, but communism isn't one of them. Many of the earliest societies are believed to have been essentially anarcho-communist.
Precisely, tribes, not countries with millions of people.

Not unless a confederation of directly democratic communes and soviets (worker councils) with no real coersive power counts as a government.
I lack a better word for a form of infrastructure that distributes resources.

Once that happens, it is no longer necessary to work for long hours in poor working conditions.
Yes but we can produce more if the same working hours remain, with more focus on making a good product than on making a cheap one.

The differences would be nothing compared to current class distinctions where the CEO earns as much as 500 times more than the lowest paid worker.
Once they have a taste of being richer they will want to gain even more.

Then the other anarchists would organize militias to defend against such an attempt.
Which would create a system of feudal lords. Eventually certain ones would be more powerful and oppression would begin again.

If we were all free-trade capitalists, there would be no war. War is caused by governments.

Profit is gained by creating goods quickly and cheaply (production and results)

Don't pretend to be an expert on something you know nothing about [business]
Under free-trade capitalism governments would still exist, since countries would still be seperate politically, just not economically. A country might still desire the resources of another so it's companies would draw in those profits.
Yes, but for usefullness it has to also be quality, where as profit means less quality.
I don't pretend to be an expert, I am stating the beliefs I have formed from oberservation.

Communism is "unnatural" from the persepective of Darwinists who would argue survival of the fittest. Capitalism very much follows this. Communism, to me, seems more common sense (in my view of what communism is). You work and get everything you need without having to worry about money, taxes, buying food, paying bills, etc. I would love to see a true communist country succeed. But there are always those people who just wouldn't work with the system and would try to get away with doing nothing or taking in excess of what they need, and I wouldn't agree with forcing these people to comply to the standard, because that's basically introducing power into the system which would corrupt it.

Capitalism has produced some goods (advances in technology and the like) but I do not like the bads that come along with it (war/weapons, poverty for those left behind, the struggle of some people to make it by everyday while other sare off fighting wars with billions of dollars worth of technology, etc.)

They would attempt to stop it. There is no gaurantee they would succeed.

True, but how can one family grow enough food to get 100 soldiers to work for them? Also, why would you have 100 soldiers to protect a farm from animals?

I'm not. I prefer a more organised form of communism with central infrastructure.


That would be theft if the farmer's withheld some of their crops to hire soldiers.


Don't defend your viewpoints to my arguments please. You're just wasting everyone's time. I'm obviously arguing directly against anarcho-communism. I'm not even considering any other form of communism right now because I'm focusing my efforts on Letila (as this is indeed his thread).

True, but how can one family grow enough food to get 100 soldiers to work for them? Also, why would you have 100 soldiers to protect a farm from animals?
To answer question one: Modern technology. Where do you live? Anywhere near farms?

To answer question two: For one, you're attempting to change the hypotheticalness of the situation instead of defending your arguments, and two it doesn't matter why anyone would need any number of soldiers to gaurd anything from anything...the fact is, the farmer had the surplus to hire those people and that is what he choose to do.

To answer question one: Modern technology. Where do you live? Anywhere near farms?

I live on a farm and one family can't produce enough food to feed one hundred people. The family in your scenario would have to turn the harvest into food in addition to harvesting it. They would end up spending all their time farming and baking.

I just don't see it as plausible.

I live on a farm and one family can't produce enough food to feed one hundred people. The family in your scenario would have to turn the harvest into food in addition to harvesting it. They would end up spending all their time farming and baking.

I just don't see it as plausible.
A farm where? I live in Arkansas and lots of people have "farms" here...

My grandparents live in Iowa. Have you ever been to Iowa? And besides, who ever said how big the family is? What if there are about 15-20 people in the family? Surely 1 person can farm enough food for about 10 people with modern technology. And even leaving all this aside, why are we disputing the details of a hypothetical situation? Either the situation suggested could happen and communism would turn into feudalism, or you're a bit on the side of denial and the suggested situation is completely impossible.

Why Communism does not work: A short essay, by the man behind _Susa_

"Communism only works in heaven, where they don't need it, and hell, where they already have it" -Ronald Reagan.
Now, Letila, I know you will say Reagan is just referring to the Marxist Authoratative government stage of communism, where they truly never got to communism. I respect your views, and I think in a Utopian society, in a world without human emotions, your view of communism would work. I honestly think it would. But anarcho-communism will never, ever, ever, work in this world. If it could work, I would support it, because it seems like the best way to live in a perfect world. But our world is not perfect. Anarcho communism does not work, and here is why.

Hypothetical Situation in a Communist Nation: Farmer Jones, Farmer Smith, and Farmer Brown all work on a communal farm together. Now, for the first few days, everything goes smoothly, each man working equal to the others. But, as I said earlier, human emotions play into communism, and ultimately will make it fail. Farmer Brown is a lazy guy, he is naturally lazy, and he does not enjoy working. So, he decides to stop working. Totally. Because anyway, everybody shares everything, so he will still have all he needs to live, food, shelter etc. So now Farmer Brown is not working on the farm. He just sits around and feeds off the work of Farmer Jones and Farmer Smith. This angers Farmer Jones. He decides, well if Farmer Brown aint working, then sure as hell I aint working, and I will still get food and shelter and etc. because we all share. Soon after Farmer Jones quits working, Farmer Smith follows suit. Other workers take cues from the farmers, and quit working. They dont care about gaining a reputation for sharing, even if you are the best sharer, you are treated the same as everybody else, you cannot become rich. So now, no one has any incentive to work, and since there are no social classes, you cannot move up in the world. So now, the economy of this nation is ruined as more workers just stop working every day. Then what happens? How do we get these men to work again? Well, the USSR showed us how. Gulags. Torture. Fear. Force them to work. Now, they work, but they are forced to do it, or they will get killed. Productivity drops, because people are working, but only reluctantly. The system is ruined.

Capitalism gives you the incentive to move up in the world. You work for your own good, so you can stay alive, no one forces you to work. You work for yourself, and you are not doing it reluctantly. Capitalism feeds off the emotions of ambition and pride and greed and the hope for a better future. You become rich, you become happy. Or, you become comfortable, so you can die happy. The ones who do not work, or work lazily, fall behind. But now, people have incentive to work, and they do so. The economy flourishes, and the nation is stable.

Capitalism works in the real world, Communism works in other worlds, without human emotions.

I'm assuming Letila's silence means he has admitted my correctness.

Or he just has better thangs to do with his life than sit around here and argue about communism.

Or he just has better thangs to do with his life than sit around here and argue about communism.
Well, you obviously do not know Letila then :D

Well, you obviously do not know Letila then :D
Exactly.

For my viewpoint http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=345283

it seems to me, that to truly be able to argue against the great evils of lassiez faire capitalism, you should be willing to educate yourself on it.
Until you do, you really have no power against it.

I have to admit, I've never really read up on communism. However I did invent it when I was about 8, and then later that night I reasoned out the flaws in it (even then I thought a physician should be rewarded more for his work than a physician's assistant)

I thought for a long time that communism really did seem like an ideal system, until about 2 years ago when I did read Atlas Shrugged.

All I'm saying, is as strongly as you feel against it, you should actually check into it- if for no reason than to strengthen your argument. I might do that with communism eventually, but I'm currently doing the Bible...

Not unless a confederation of directly democratic communes and soviets (worker councils) with no real coersive power counts as a government.Like in the Paris Commune you mean?