NationStates Jolt Archive

Being a socialist, i have often wondered if a communist country would work without hardline inforcement, and whether this would be an evolution or different tree of communism.
also, would communism work in a large society that isnt mainly industrial or agricultural? your thoughts pleased. Oh and awnser my poll so i can see the general political direction of people awnsering the post please.

sorry ignore the poll attached bit

Being a socialist, i have often wondered if a communist country would work without hardline inforcement, and whether this would be an evolution or different tree of communism.
Not as long as I'm around :).

yes but not yet - not with the way people think and behave nowadays. sometime in the future human nature may change (a central tenet of communist philosophy) and enable a more altruistic society to emerge.

so in short: not for the timebeing, no. people aren't ready yet and will need to be forced against their will

Being a socialist, i have often wondered if a communist country would work without hardline inforcement, and whether this would be an evolution or different tree of communism.

Yes, but not yet. Democratic communism is a definite possiblity. The problem in its implementation is reactionaries that seek to destroy the system.

also, would communism work in a large society that isnt mainly industrial or agricultural?

How do you mean? Tribal societies on many levels can be considered communist.

yes but not yet

LOL

Stop reading my mind! :p

I'll try it:

Start
Feudalism - Religion, Princes, Feudal Mythology and Tradition oppresses the little guy.
Then technology starts making the feudal overlord useless and the merchant becomes the admired head of society. Monarchies disappear over time or become meaningless.

Capitalism - Now those merchants are the big shot. Capitalist ideology and science is used to justify the oppression of the little guy.
Then after a while Capitalism runs out of new labour, profit margins get smaller and smaller, more and more capital is necessary, while wages get pushed lower and lower. Eventually there is so much machinery around that the profits become near zero - the business cycle becomes worse and worse, social tension becomes too much and eventually the workers overthrow their oppressors.

Socialism - We have so many machines that we live in near-bliss. The workers have taken over the place and together form a dictatorship of the many. This is where central planning is likely to be unavoidable and so in reality the system fails.
In theory there now is Socialist economics, science, tradition and belief. But with working methods improving, and the sheer amount of goods makes greed and economic hardship disappear, the need for the socialist dictatorship disappears.

Communism - The final stage of history. No money, no governments, no hierarchies, just pure bliss. Things get done only because people do it for pleasure.
Finish

Or so says Marx...there's plenty of people who think it works differently.

LOL

Stop reading my mind! :p
:eek: stop reading my posts! ;) :p

:eek: stop reading my posts! ;) :p

I didn't, seriously!

Hmmm. But surely if a charismatic leader invoked communist-patriotism in the people they would follow his/her word as a majority, and the ones that didnt wouldnt REALLY need to be dealt with badly, just as a powerless minority.

I doubt it. We can't possibly expect no one in a society of "common ownership" to be greedy. There are some who will always try to better themselves than others. Whether the country is based on industry, agriculture or whatever, as long as wealth exists in a country, some people will try to hoard it for their own benefits. It's human nature for people to be defensive of what they own.

And I always thought communism in theory involved no violence, this rather being done through communism in practice, as it's impossible to make people to share what they own without some kind of force. So this won't be a new branch of communism at all.

Sure it's posible but i suppose it depends what you mean by hardline also it would be a society quiet different to what we think of as a "modern" or "progressive" nation.

PS: is capitalism possible without hardline enforcement???

Originally Posted by Kanabia
LOL

Stop reading my mind! :p

:eek: stop reading my posts! ;) :p

Looks like it's tin foil hat time. :p

To the topic at hand, I doubt it. As much as I would like to see a utopian society, humanity's greed & self interest seems too ingrained to overcome.

Where is the hardline enforcement required? To make the lazy do their part in a communist world? What's the incentive to work, if everything you need is provided by someone else's labor?

Where is the hardline enforcement required? To make the lazy do their part in a communist world? What's the incentive to work, if everything you need is provided by someone else's labor?

Ever been camping with a group of friends, and one person simply wasn't pulling their weight with any of the work? How was this person treated?

It is just the governments of communist countries if there wernt so corrupt would have a easier time showing the benefits of cummunism

Ever been camping with a group of friends, and one person simply wasn't pulling their weight with any of the work? How was this person treated?
I know where you're going with this. I've tried to start a thread where the size of society makes communism unworkable. It's easy to keep things under control in small groups. A camping trip is not as good an example as a plane/boat wreck where there are survivors that depend on each other. Communism is natural in that situation.

It starts to break down in larger groups. The Pilgrims ran what was essentially a communist society, except that they did it for the profit of the company that sent them to Plymouth. They just about died out because of the enormous lack of effort. It wasn't until William Bradford gave them each personal property that they were interested enough in their own survival to succeed.

I know where you're going with this. I've tried to start a thread where the size of society makes communism unworkable. It's easy to keep things under control in small groups. A camping trip is not as good an example as a plane/boat wreck where there are survivors that depend on each other. Communism is natural in that situation.

It starts to break down in larger groups. The Pilgrims ran what was essentially a communist society, except that they did it for the profit of the company that sent them to Plymouth. They just about died out because of the enormous lack of effort. It wasn't until William Bradford gave them each personal property that they were interested enough in their own survival to succeed.


Okay. I think it's less about the size of society itself making it unfeasible, and more about the current structure of society reducing the feeling of solidarity that connects all workers as feeling dependent on one another. When it comes down to it, we are. I don't think anyone can really deny that. Today however, any feeling of solidarity lies only within a few unions desperately trying to maintain a foothold against the onslaught of right-wing political ideology. This is the main rationale behind why i'm starting to think "not yet" for Communism. I think it's technically more possible than ever before to implement on a large scale in practice, but getting people to go along with the idea and abandoning the "me first" thing is very difficult, because "me first" is what gives you a better quality of life in our system (and this could be extended to include the USSR). I can personally vouch that if a non-authoritarian communist society ever came about, I would be even more willing to work to the best of my ability, however. (whether you believe me or not is your choice.) That's also why I see "human nature" arguments against communism as fallacious...because I don't think like that. I think the issue is our present culture; "This is the way it is and how it always will be, so put up or shut up" seems to be quite a common opinion. Fortunately, cultures have proven remarkably prone to change over time, (just 50 years ago, racism wasn't such a bad thing) so who knows what we'll be thinking like in a hundred years?

(I can't really debate the issue of the Pilgrims, I know very little about them.)

If done right socialism and communism would not remove or lessen the incentive to work. The only thing that would change is what you work for..this is espeally true for communism.You would work for yourself and benifit society at the same time.

All communism needs to work is: 1) A excess robotisised work force to do menial labor 2) An overabundance of energy 3) An over abundance of natural resourses 4) Enough room so that everyone has as much land as they want.

.... Yeah, I'm not holding my breath either.

Of course it is. And not in a generation or a century or a million years. Tuesday, if you like, would be good for me.

I don't hold with all this evolutionary tree gubbins, either. I'm no Marxist. Some technologies and structures in economy are evolutionary, but society, democracy, that's all degrees of right and wrong.

There's no need for violent revolution that can be opposed, either.

People just need to start living communal lives and rejecting improper authority.

The only way it will come to violence and enforcement is if those authorities react with force, as they have in the past. But the sacrifices of such people as the Parisian communards and the true Sovietists in Russia, amongst others, have changed 1st world society enough that governments can no longer get away with putting women and children up against the wall and shooting them en masse for dissent, and can't send in the tanks without being compared to the Chinese authorities. Thus people can reasonably expect to try it and live.

The Argentine example of worker self management in recent years shows that reactionaries will still try to use laws, rights, and van loads of thugs to break the far left and apolitical opposition facing their status quo, but without the ability to kill by the thousand they can now be resisted without stooping to their level.

Huzzah!

You would work for yourself and benifit society at the same time.

Thats the way it works in Capitalism as well, except the value of your contributions are arrived at freely.

(I can't really debate the issue of the Pilgrims, I know very little about them.)
My use of the Pilgrims was to illustrate how people depend on private property ownership. We could use the Israeli kibbutz to illustrate the same point. Those collectives aren't self-sufficient in a financial sense. They depend on subsidies from the government. If all of Israel were collectivized or communal, where would those subsidies come from?

I think the size of the society is very important. If you cannot get everyone together into a closet and shame the slackers into working, there's no hope for communal living.

Now comes the part where deciders and enforcers are necessary. In the closet, everyone comes to a consensus. In a city, there will have to be people that decide the fates of others based on some criteria. Maybe sick days, maybe production quotas, maybe eye color will be used to decide who's slacking and who's not. But there won't be the same consensus to the decision as there was when you could fit everyone into that closet.

And to answer your question about the hiker/camper, we would put up with him for the trip, but never invite him again. Girlfriends are harder to banish, but sometimes they just deserve it.

[QUOTE=Europa alpha]Being a socialist, i have often wondered if a communist country would work without hardline inforcement, and whether this would be an evolution or different tree of communism.
also, would communism work in a large society that isnt mainly industrial or agricultural? your thoughts pleased. Oh and awnser my poll so i can see the general political direction of people awnsering the post please.[/QUOTE

communism can work without hardline inforcement, in small communities of no more than say 100 people .. a whole country ... not a chance

Ah, yes, not with more than a number I've just pulled out of my backside. Very good. Why didn't you just say, "Awoogawoobaloogaboo!"?

As long as there is greed, want, and lust for power in human hearts, than any system based on the "common good" is doomed to fail. Those placed in hgigh places tend to wish to remain there, those in low places tend to wish to move upward. Those in the high places will defend thier right to stay Alpha, and defend thier spot, whether by campaign funding, death squads, KGB, etc.There is no human society in hostory, or present, that defeats that model. Proclaiming a true communistic or socialistic society loudly ignores basic human nature.

Question for communists: if self interested capitalists like me stood for government would you let me stand and (electoral cycles and all) possibly win, or would you get your secret police to shoot me in some guy's basement?

If done right socialism and communism would not remove or lessen the incentive to work. The only thing that would change is what you work for..this is espeally true for communism.You would work for yourself and benifit society at the same time.

Well hooray for that, I want act of altruism,and aid everybody else in place of me. I will benefit society through my extortionately high taxes, why should I give more to the untalented. The "auream mediocram" is a fallacy, accept it and apply for the Tory party.

It depends on how long of a time scale we're talking about. One year, yes I suppose it would need hardline enforcement. 100 years, perhaps not so much if you do it gradually.

I believe it is possible, though there is still a long way to go before it can happen. Most people are still not ready for it, it seems.

Another NS poster, Disraeliland, summed up communism pretty well in two posts (in a different thread):

Marx failed to explain why an all-powerful state, led by men with total power over all the people, would simply go away at a particular moment.

Just the sort of ommission one would expect from a third-rate 'thinker' like Marx.

Let's examine Mar'x program for a communist state, rather than people's individual notions of communism (which are inevitably coloured by prejudice, pro-communists will define anything bad done by communists as non-communist, anti-communist will describe anything bad done by communists are inherintly communist)

The first section of The Communist Manifesto is a long-winded, repetitive, hackneyed rant about the evils of capitalism, or rather, the false characiture of capitalism he paints.

The second part takes his collection of strawmen, and places his model of communism as 'better'. It includes such ridiculous fluff as "they [The communist party] have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole".

He then lists his 10 commandments, the program of a communist state, which is what should be evaluated.

1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes

-Total seizure of property removes incentive to work, obviously. Another point, of one owns a piece of land, one did something to get the resources to exchange for the land. What right has the state to seize this when they did nothing for it?

2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax

-Seizure of salary removes incentive to work, obviously.

3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance

-Removing the ability to leave something to one's family removes an incentive to work. It is also, quite simply, grave-robbing.

4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels

-The possibility that people will leave a government's jurisdiction is one of the factors that improves government, and will tend to force governments to refrain from placing excessive restrictions of the citizens, and to refrain from over-taxing them. An example of which was the Bjelke-Petersen Government in Queensland abolishing death-taxes in 1978, which drew old people to Queensland so they could kick the bucket, and leave all their stuff to their families. By 1981, every other state in Australia had abolished death taxes.

Confiscating the property of anyone who attempts to leave a state gives a powerful inducement to stay. A communist society is excessively governed, imposing intolerable restrictions on the people, and any contact with capitalist societies will contaminate the communist society by showing the prosperity that can be provided under a more free system. The talented in a communist society, who are treated no better than the idle and ignorant, seeing the better life under a capitalist system will want to go.

As for rebels, how do you target 'rebels' specially. In free societies, the only time people who oppose the government are targetted is when they break other laws, detonating bombs, or hijacking aircraft etc. Being a rebel in this context is not what the free society punishes, it is the specific actions of bombing or hijacking. What Marx means by 'rebels' is anyone who disagrees with communism. .

5) Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly

-Monopolies are always destructive.

6) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state

-State ownership of all communcations means one can only say what the state approves of, state ownership of all transport means one can only go where the state permits one. Can't have the workers in the "worker's paradise" saying anything that might disuade people, and certainly can't allow them to escape.

7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan

-Redundant, according to previous points, the state already controls all lands and industries. Also, a monopoly, (even a state-monopoly) is basically inefficient.

8) Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture

- Marx knew that there is no incentive to work under his system, so people must be forced to work on pain of anything from a spell in the gulag to death.

9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country

-See "Great Leap Forward" in communist China.

10) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc

-This is a commonly misunderstood component of Marx. Some think it stands for a publically funded education system. They however neglect the phrase "Combination of education with industrial production", the meaning of this is clear: as an 'education', children are to be torn from their parents (Marx also advocated the breakdown of the traditional family), and sent into the factories, farms, and mines.

Marx fails to explain why the state will be more efficient than competative private enterprise (another glaring ommission from this charlatan)

Communism is a brutal, inhuman system. In Marx's program is the reason for almost all the 100 million+ deaths that occurred under communist regimes, from brutal repressions, to massive famines, Marx ordained it all. Even the deaths caused in wars of communist expansionism.

No matter how much neo-Marxist scum try to whitewash it, they advocate a set of ideas that left a trail of blood longer than national socialists ever comtemplated.

Every political system claims that by following it, people will have the best future possible, a perfect society.

Why should communism by judged by this intention, while other systems are judged on results?

You judge communism by the nirvana Marx claimed it would bring, but when judging National Socialism, I'll bet you point to Auschwitz, rather than the perfect racial order Hitler claimed National Socialism would bring.

All political systems should be judged on results, including communism with its record of over 100 million corpses, famine, wars, terror, repression, and economic ruin whereever it is tried. Claiming it is not communism is fallacious, for reasons I outlined earlier (and no one has seriously contested).

Communism has no moral basis. There can be no moral basis in removing all rights to property, free expression, and freedom of movement (all required by communism)

Communism doesn't make everyone truely equal, and even if it did, it would have no moral basis. There is no moral basis is forcing equality on people who are all different. People who are different are by definition not equal, each is superior in some areas, inferior in others.

In fact, an individual person is not equal with himself at different times.

Forcing equality on people who are in fact different, and therefore not equal cannot have a moral basis, especially when those inequalities are not inheriently harmful.

Communism is a horrible idea, for the reasons I outlined previously in the thread. The only way communism can be attempted is by removing all freedoms.

Communist regimes must exist in isolation from free capitalist nations, because the best and brightest in the communist society will go to a free capitalist nation where their talents are respected. If they can't go, discontent with the communists will grow. East Germany is the most obvious example of the communist's need for repression. While East Germany banned emigration to West Germany and enforced that ban with the Berlin Wall, East Germany survived for over 40 years. Without the wall, East Germany collapsed in months.

The only way to force equality on everyone is to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator. You certainly can't force people to improve, they must do that themselves for their own reasons.

Explain this: why should I live in a society in which I am no better than an idle drunk, or a criminal, as you suggest I should? Why should I not aspire to be the best I can be instead of submitting to medeocrity?

Where is the moral basis in reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator? How can society benefit from this? Why would the individual benefit from this? Where is the inherient virtue in equality, as opposed to each aspiring to be the best he can be?

^ Damn, those "commandments" always make the hair raise on the back of my neck. Thanks for the scare, and Happy Halloween! :p

Another NS poster, Disraeliland, summed up communism pretty well in two posts (in a different thread):

No, he didn't. He actually does a very poor job of "summing up" Communism, as he thinks the Soviet way (State Capitalism) is the only way. He seems to know absolutely nothing of Anarcho-Communism, or true Communism.

No, he didn't. He actually does a very poor job of "summing up" Communism, as he thinks the Soviet way (State Capitalism) is the only way. He seems to know absolutely nothing of Anarcho-Communism, or true Communism.
Yeah, only DHomme knows about true Communism!

Yeah, only DHomme knows about true Communism!

Yeah, that's because he's DA MAN!!!

*laughs uncontrollably*

Being a socialist, i have often wondered if a communist country would work without hardline inforcement, and whether this would be an evolution or different tree of communism.
also, would communism work in a large society that isnt mainly industrial or agricultural? your thoughts pleased. Oh and awnser my poll so i can see the general political direction of people awnsering the post please.

Nope.

You'd have to get rid of all the gun owners and kill civil liberties here, something most people here tend to support.

Should this ever happen, the bodies will hit the floor.....imagine a New Orleans type scenario in EVERY major city.

It could happen in the 3rd world or European nations, although whether or not it would work in the US is very doubtful.

I believe it is possible, though there is still a long way to go before it can happen. Most people are still not ready for it, it seems.

Or they just don't want it.

Yeah, that's because he's DA MAN!!!

*laughs uncontrollably*

Yes.....

*kicks anarchist*

Yes.....

*kicks anarchist*

Aww, poor grumpy trot.

Have a commie cake. *gives cake*

It is just the governments of communist countries if there wernt so corrupt would have a easier time showing the benefits of cummunism

Yeah like enormous unemployment, inflation, lack of economic growth, restrictions on personal liberty, enormous tax rates, inefficient public services, a lower standard of living, restrictions on political freedom, shortages in consumer goods, lack of productivity and state brutality.

But you're right, the opaque, undemocratic, incredibly centralised, safeguard-free, dictatorial, military orientated nature of most communist systems mean that, INCREDIBLY governmental corruption does tend to be a bit of a problem.

Yeah like enormous unemployment,

Out of all of the failures of the USSR during its command economy years (up until perestroika), this wasn't one of them.

I will state that i'm not a fan of the USSR -politically or economically- for various reasons, but that is the society you are attacking, so I shall play devil's advocate here.

inflation,

Ditto.

lack of economic growth,

The USSR grew into the world's second largest economy after starting with nothing, in a shorter time than the western nations did so.

Yes, I know the methods employed in that example are well beyond being simply questionable. But remember, the devil's advocate thing. ;)

restrictions on personal liberty

Not a problem with communism. Just of dictatorships.

enormous tax rates

Incorrect, in a Stalinist society, there is no tax, as all industry and commerce is controlled by the party, so money goes back to the government anyway.

(In a true communist society, there is no tax either, because there is no monetary system.)

inefficient public services

Yeah. A problem of bureaucracy. They need to be decentralised.

a lower standard of living,
Hmm, i'd query this too...despite the overwhelming flaws of the (European) Stalinist bloc, they still had a better material standard of living than most of the capitalist world - look at South America, Africa, and much of Asia.

restrictions on political freedom

Problem of dictatorship, not of communism.

shortages in consumer goods

Yeah, again the bureaucracy thing. The bureaucrats in Moscow couldn't care less if the farmers around Kharkov couldn't get shoes.

lack of productivity

I know i'd work harder if there was a sense of my labour benefiting society as a whole and not just one person...or group of people. A problem with the USSR, too.

and state brutality.

Again, not the economics of communism at fault....

Aww, poor grumpy trot.

Have a commie cake. *gives cake*

*takes cake*

*kicks mensh*

Mwuhahaha. Never trust the bolsheviks.

*takes cake*

*kicks mensh*

Mwuhahaha. Never trust the bolsheviks.

Joke's on you. That was a cake of soap.

Joke's on you. That was a cake of soap.

jokes on you, I just washed with it. Check and mate

The reason there has to be hardline enforcement is that communism is a disastrous way to run an economy.

The State must find a scapegoat to excuse the disasters it creates and thus begins a continual civil war between the state and the people.

Once Group A is eliminated and nothing changes or gets worse then it will be Group X that has to be dealt with. In that way 100 Million people were destroyed by the State in the name of "freeing" them from the horrible bourgeoisie.

The reason there has to be hardline enforcement is that communism is a disastrous way to run an economy.

The State must find a scapegoat to excuse the disasters it creates and thus begins a continual civil war between the state and the people.

Once Group A is eliminated and nothing changes or gets worse then it will be Group X that has to be dealt with. In that way 100 Million people were destroyed by the State in the name of "freeing" them from the horrible bourgeoisie.
I guess we all need to read "Animal Farm" again.

whenever anyone ever mentions communism, most people instantly jump to the stalin/mao hellhole statist version. why is that? even when people point out that their is a non state version, and that at least 50% of all communist philosophy has been anarcho-communist philosophy, you still persist in insisting that it would be authoritarian becasue of state ownership of stuff, and assuming that their would be a state. hell, the anarcho communists even predicted russia would go the way it did. so saying things like "the state must find a scapegoat", or talking about governemnt corruption is only addressing half the communist coin, so to speak. and even when you do that, you fail to address the way a peasant society got the first human being into space in under 100 years under state communism (granted all thoose deaths and oppression werent a price worth paying, but even so, they managed to beat the rest of the world, including the USA, in getting a humans up there).

First off, the way a peasant society got into space had more to do with capturing Nazi scientists than any imagined good that came them being communists, willingly or unwillingly.

On your other points, I would point out that anytime a group of like minded people have gotten together and tried to form just a basic communist collective, that endeavor has failed in a short amunt of time (2-3 years). It seems that the slogan "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability" is taken more seriously by people who tend to be freeloaders.

The kibbutz in Israel succeeded for a long time (a generation) but eventually most of them lost their purpose for existing after Israel had become more prosperous and the children weren't as fervent in their idealism as their parents.

Socialism was tried in America on a small scale that failed miserably in comparison to its high ideals at the outset. A wealthy scotsman bought land in New Hope, Indiana (it was in Indiana anyway) to set up a collectivist society. From his son's diary, apparently the population of the town was more prone to sitting around discussing what high minded and intelligent people they were and arguing over socialist philosophy than actually producing anything. People left when the harvest came and went but there was not enough food to feed everyone. Although they had planted enough to feed the population not enough people could be bothered to actually harvest it. After 3 years it was all over. The grand experiment failed when the once prosperous farming community fields became fallow.

BUT IT COULD WORK! TRUE COMMUNISM HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED!
blah blah blah

Being a socialist, i have often wondered if a communist country would work without hardline inforcement, and whether this would be an evolution or different tree of communism.
also, would communism work in a large society that isnt mainly industrial or agricultural? your thoughts pleased. Oh and awnser my poll so i can see the general political direction of people awnsering the post please.

Neither Communism or Fascism will work and in the words of Sir Winston Churchill "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Being a socialist, i have often wondered if a communist country would work without hardline inforcement, and whether this would be an evolution or different tree of communism.
On any large scale, you need some hardline enforcement because communism will become a totalitarian oligarchy. That's the way communism is.

On any large scale, you need some hardline enforcement because communism will become a totalitarian oligarchy. That's the way communism is.

And the comedic gold keeps rolling in.

Keep it coming, guys.

No, he didn't. He actually does a very poor job of "summing up" Communism, as he thinks the Soviet way (State Capitalism) is the only way. He seems to know absolutely nothing of Anarcho-Communism, or true Communism.
Ah yes. True Communism™.

Load of bull.

Communism requires a totalitarian state. It cannot not have a government. Central planning REQUIRES a central planner of some sort. Having "communal ownership" of the means of production REQUIRES that everyone consents or else you go right back to "exploitation" and "heirarchy". Unless, of course, you have a government that will make people do as they are told.

And the comedic gold keeps rolling in.
And the whining commies hate the fact that their system sucks ass.

Keep crying, guys.

Two Points -Why are there so many communists/leftists playing NS?
-Why does so many people seem to want more communist governments in the world?

By the way i almost voted BNP in the last election

Two Points -Why are there so many communists/leftists playing NS?
Because they wish to feel like they are exploiting their fellow humans.


-Why does so many people seem to want more communist governments in the world?
Jealousy on the part of the people who think they are owed a living, and want the government to bring everyone else down to their level.

Because they wish to feel like they are exploiting their fellow humans.



Jealousy on the part of the people who think they are owed a living, and want the government to bring everyone else down to their level.


At last another fellow Right Winger!!

Ah yes. True Communism™.

Load of bull.

Communism requires a totalitarian state. It cannot not have a government. Central planning REQUIRES a central planner of some sort. Having "communal ownership" of the means of production REQUIRES that everyone consents or else you go right back to "exploitation" and "heirarchy". Unless, of course, you have a government that will make people do as they are told.
True Communism™ :D

Doesn't anyone else find it strange that almost every communist posting here has made at least one comment along the lines of "It can't work, at least not now"?
Or "It could work if people weren't people-- i.e. selfish or lazy"?

If it can't work now, and it can't work so long humans are humans, why hold on to that belief? Especially in practical politics? I mean how many prequalifiers does a political philosophy need in place to work before you call it bullshit?

Why not put those theories on a dusty shelf until that day comes?
Seems like an incredible waste of time.

Two Points -Why are there so many communists/leftists playing NS?
-Why does so many people seem to want more communist governments in the world?

By the way i almost voted BNP in the last election

Point 1) Because this is the only place a communist government could be successful.

Point 2) Because they've never had to live in a Communist country and/or to piss off an authority fugure who is a Republican (and is paying for them to be indoctrinated).
Point 2 corollary-if they did live in a communist country, they would rebel against it to piss off an authority figure who was a Communist party member.

Point 2) Because they've never had to live in a Communist country
Funny you should say that...I work with two individuals who grew up in Communist countries (one in Eastern Europe, one in Communist China), and they are the two most vehement opposers of communism I've ever met. I've yet to meet somebody who used to live in a communist country and who still thinks it's a good system.

Bottle:

I've gotten the same response from the people I've met as well.

Not hard to figure out why Communist countries issued travel passes instead of having an open border, either.

Why won't this insipid ideology/pseudo-religion vanish? The economics are a joke. Anyone who has taken 6 hours of micro and macro economics can explain why it would fail (that was an actual an essay test question I had to answer in order to pass Macro). The true believers often complain about their lack of freedom and the state of the oppression and then turn around and advocate a perfect recipe for a dictatorship. Mystifying.

Funny you should say that...I work with two individuals who grew up in Communist countries (one in Eastern Europe, one in Communist China), and they are the two most vehement opposers of communism I've ever met. I've yet to meet somebody who used to live in a communist country and who still thinks it's a good system.
Same here.

I personally know Yuri Maltsev (http://www.mises.org/fellows.asp?control=11) (even had dinner at his house once), and I get to hear stories from time to time about just how much of a economic paper tiger the USSR really was, and how bad things were.

i think the US got most of the nazis scientists...
i think youll also find that prior to the first successful democracy, lots of democracies failed. just because something hasnt happened yet, doesnt mean it never can, does it? fortunate no one told that to inventors etc, or wed still be living in the treetops, saying "its our nature to live in trees and anything else is just feeble minded idealism. anyone thats ever tried to live on the ground got eaten by tigers, so thats clear evidence it impossible of humans to live on the floor. you just want us to leap down their so you can eat our bananas! its an evil floor-lover conspiracy!".

also, prior to its installment, democracy was thought to not be possible, not with universal suffrage, certainly. why, itd be mob rule! those stupid plebians would vote for whoever told them to, because its human nature. just as its the nature of women to be ruled by their wombs, so they certainly cant vote. why, of course its true! our top scientists (whose wages, coincidentally, i pay) have proved it without a doubt that women are ruled by their wombs!

i hardly think that first class git churchill is in a position to comment on communism, though he can on fascism, having praised it, and saying he would have been a blackshirt, in earlier life. hes as likely to endorse communism as bill gates is to endorse wealth distribution.

"Communism requires a totalitarian state. It cannot not have a government. Central planning REQUIRES a central planner of some sort. Having "communal ownership" of the means of production REQUIRES that everyone consents or else you go right back to "exploitation" and "heirarchy". Unless, of course, you have a government that will make people do as they are told."

you dont need one person to plan something. if people get together as a group they can decide how much food, how many chairs etc quite easily. and, that stops a first class cock getting in charge and ordering hundreds of cigars for him. and of course it requires mass support! every government does! otherwise their is a revolution, or somesuch. to claim a governemnt could go on with everyone hating it is the strangest arguement of them all, and if thats how you measure succesful governemnt, success in the face of universal condemnation, i think you will find no government can work.

if indeed we "whining commies hate the fact that their system sucks ass", youd question indeed why we are commies. presumably because we think the opposite of that.

as another point, i know its a cliche to say, but china, russia, vietnaam and cuba, really arent communist, ok? it is a different case to nazi germany. nazism was invented by hitler, and hitler ran it, so its not unreasonable to think that that was basically what hitler wanted, yeah? no nazi has ever condemned hitler, have they? however, marx always stressed he was no marxist, in the sense he didnt agree with the people who were allegedly marxists at the time. so, it is presumably safe to say that russia, china etc were not what marxs version of communism was like, yes? as marx kind of said they wee not what he wanted (as the "marxists" who did those revolutions were the descendents of the ones marx didnt agree with). then theirs the kropotkin, bakunin etc anarcho-communism, that actually hasnt been tried (to my knowledge). i personally would have hated to live in china and russia too. most sane people would.

i would guess that seeing how jennifer government is presumably the main way people find out about nationstates (it certainly is how i did, anyway), and jennifer government hardly portrays capitalist big business in a good light, then it follows its more of a lefty book (not much, but a bit. you could hardly argue its a positivew view of capitalism, could you?) so more lefties read it.

dont vote BNP.

finally, i think in russia the communist party does fairly well in elections, doesnt it? i heard a fair few people want stalin back, only, y'know, without the mass slaughter. i think life expectancy fell when capitalism was introduced, too. however, i cant remember whether the source was too reliable, so you dont have to trust me on that bit...

i think the US got most of the nazis scientists...
i think youll also find that prior to the first successful democracy, lots of democracies failed. just because something hasnt happened yet, doesnt mean it never can, does it?
Just because 1 + 1 has never been equal to 3 doesn't mean that it never can, right?

IOW: a system that violates basic economic laws, such as communism does, can never work on any large scale.

But if you're ignorant of economic laws (such as most communists are), then you can be free to believe that the factors of production just "exist", and that there really is such a thing as "surplus value" and that profit is "exploitation".


Communism requires a totalitarian state. It cannot not have a government. Central planning REQUIRES a central planner of some sort. Having "communal ownership" of the means of production REQUIRES that everyone consents or else you go right back to "exploitation" and "heirarchy". Unless, of course, you have a government that will make people do as they are told.
you dont need one person to plan something.
You need a government to do it on that large of a scale.


if people get together as a group they can decide how much food, how many chairs etc quite easily.
Ever tried to get people to decide on pizza toppings?


and, that stops a first class cock getting in charge and ordering hundreds of cigars for him. and of course it requires mass support! every government does! otherwise their is a revolution, or somesuch. to claim a governemnt could go on with everyone hating it is the strangest arguement of them all, and if thats how you measure succesful governemnt, success in the face of universal condemnation, i think you will find no government can work.
All the better.


if indeed we "whining commies hate the fact that their system sucks ass", youd question indeed why we are commies. presumably because we think the opposite of that.
No, I wouldn't. I know of the human capacity for self-delusion; that's why there are so many theists.


as another point, i know its a cliche to say, but china, russia, vietnaam and cuba, really arent communist, ok?
Yes they are/were, apologist.


Anarcho-communism can't be tried on anything but the smallest of scales, because communism requires a government.

Bottle:

I've gotten the same response from the people I've met as well.

Not hard to figure out why Communist countries issued travel passes instead of having an open border, either.

Why won't this insipid ideology/pseudo-religion vanish? The economics are a joke. Anyone who has taken 6 hours of micro and macro economics can explain why it would fail (that was an actual an essay test question I had to answer in order to pass Macro). The true believers often complain about their lack of freedom and the state of the oppression and then turn around and advocate a perfect recipe for a dictatorship. Mystifying.

i think the reason we dont beleive the (capitalist) economists who tell us our system couldnt possibly work is the same reason we didnt beleive them when they said something to the effect of "british minimum wage laws would cause the economy to crash, and everyone would be left starving on the streets and you can trust me on that because im an economist" and we are still employed. theyve said countless other stuff like that too. economics is hardly an exact science, and also, i think they tend to be fairly well paid, so arernt likely to support communism, and their bias leaks through. there hardly gonna go on the usual anticommmie rant, then prove themselves wrong with deliciate equations, now are they? and you assume that all communism, as usual, is state communism, which is a fair recipie for dictatorship, as anarcho-communists have stressed.

BAAWA:

I remember hearing stories about huge prices being paid for windshield wipers on the Soviet black market.

IF a person bribed the right official, and was given a permit, to wait 8 years, to purchase a complete hunk of crap car, they would have to remove the windshield wipers when they weren't driving or they would go to someone who needed them more ("To each according to their need..." and all that.)

They based their 5 year plan (which was amended every year) on tonnage so in order to be considered a model commie factory, the car parts they made weren't based on what was needed (the market) but on how much material went into making a part. So naturally there was an overabundance of tires and bumpers but a shortage of windshield wipers and mirrors.

i think the reason we dont beleive the (capitalist) economists who tell us our system couldnt possibly work is the same reason we didnt beleive them when they said something to the effect of "british minimum wage laws would cause the economy to crash, and everyone would be left starving on the streets and you can trust me on that because im an economist"
Name the economists who said that.


and we are still employed. theyve said countless other stuff like that too. economics is hardly an exact science, and also, i think they tend to be fairly well paid, so arernt likely to support communism,
Actually, a good number of them did, in the past.

You haven't gotten through high school yet, have you?


and their bias leaks through. there hardly gonna go on the usual anticommmie rant, then prove themselves wrong with deliciate equations, now are they? and you assume that all communism, as usual, is state communism, which is a fair recipie for dictatorship, as anarcho-communists have stressed.
On any large scale, it can only be state communism.

Social-anarchists:

If you want to start a commune I won't stand in the way. I might even join if it wasn't a forgone conclusion that I would be one of the "from each according to his ability people".

Go buy some land in the Yukon and make a go of it. Take all your commie buddies with you. You'll need something to eat.

(that was a joke)

Just because 1 + 1 has never been equal to 3 doesn't mean that it never can, right?

IOW: a system that violates basic economic laws, such as communism does, can never work on any large scale.

But if you're ignorant of economic laws (such as most communists are), then you can be free to believe that the factors of production just "exist", and that there really is such a thing as "surplus value" and that profit is "exploitation".




You need a government to do it on that large of a scale.



Ever tried to get people to decide on pizza toppings?



All the better.



No, I wouldn't. I know of the human capacity for self-delusion; that's why there are so many theists.



Yes they are/were, apologist.


Anarcho-communism can't be tried on anything but the smallest of scales, because communism requires a government.

i imagine they said "Just because 1 + 1 has never been equal to 3 doesn't mean that it never can, right?" about democracy too. repeating it doesnt make it fact, just as it didnt then. i would hesitate to say as most communists are, untill youve met most communists. as i ve said, the economists are hardly going to demonstrate how wrong the system thats given them lots of money and therfore power is, are they? a group of capitalists have said only capitalism works, a group of christians have said only christainity works. so what? thats one group of poeples (inevitably biased) opinion.

i doubt you do need a governemnt to do things on that scale, personnaly. but you can say cant, and i can say can all day. i think people can organise themselves without being told to do it by a central authority, eg anarchist protests, trade unions etc, you think they cant, eg... um... erm...

i have tried to get people to agree on pizza toppings and we did. it was remarkably easy. no wonder you think you need telling what to do if you capitalists cant organise yourself to decide a pizza!

i dont really "get" your all tyhe better comment. you seem to be agreeing with me (thats how it seems, correct me if im wrong)

i quite like your comment on theists and self delusion though. you know which economic system theists tend to support? lets take a look, shall we? capitalism! they tend to be rather anticommmunist, i think. rabidly, even. remarkable, that self delusion, isnt it?

and they werent, as i pointed out, they werent communist. did you not read th erest of that paragraph? they claimed to be marxist, yet marx disowned the marxists they based their ideas on! hence, they are not the marxist varient of communism, and they certainly were not anarcho communists.

i imagine they said "Just because 1 + 1 has never been equal to 3 doesn't mean that it never can, right?" about democracy too.
That's irrelevant. Communism ignores every economic law there is. It's like trying to fight a war and doing everything that Sun Tzu advised against.


as i ve said, the economists are hardly going to demonstrate how wrong the system thats given them lots of money and therfore power is, are they?
Then why are there communist economists, and why did there used to be a lot of them?


i doubt you do need a governemnt to do things on that scale, personnaly.
You can doubt it all you like, but that doesn't matter.


i have tried to get people to agree on pizza toppings and we did. it was remarkably easy.
Ok...now try to get one billion people to all agree on pizza toppings.

I'd love to see that.


i dont really "get" your all tyhe better comment. you seem to be agreeing with me (thats how it seems, correct me if im wrong)
I'm an anarchocapitalist; I'd rather see governments have their power removed by the people just saying "well, that's enough of that crap".


i quite like your comment on theists and self delusion though. you know which economic system theists tend to support? lets take a look, shall we? capitalism!
Then why are there theistic socialists? And why did you try a poisoning the well fallacy?


and they werent,
And they were communist, apologist.

Yes.

Central planning REQUIRES a central planner of some sort.Yes, society is the central planner.
Having "communal ownership" of the means of production REQUIRES that everyone consents or else you go right back to "exploitation" and "heirarchy".It doesn't require consensus, but it does require that everyone living in the society would realize that agreeing to abide by society's decisions is in their best interests.
Furthermore, why would people live in the society if they didn't believe it was in their best interests?

Yes, society is the central planner.
Fallacy of reification.


It doesn't require consensus, but it does require that everyone living in the society would realize that agreeing to abide by society's decisions is in their best interests.
Fallacy of reification, and there's the problem of COERCION.


Furthermore, why would people live in the society if they didn't believe it was in their best interests?
Why would the people live in North Korea if it wasn't in their best interest?

Name the economists who said that.



Actually, a good number of them did, in the past.

You haven't gotten through high school yet, have you?



On any large scale, it can only be state communism.

well, i sorry butve not done an in detail study of the turn of he century economists names, so i dont know his name. however i have it on good authority (a right wing lib dem) that they said that, so i trust him.

amusingly, your observation that im not out of high school isnt too far from the truth, though i actually am (off to uni next year, and if anyone makes a stupid, patronising comment that ill grow out of it, like believing in equality and sharing are childish fantasies, then they can shut the hell up. it was in fact being a selfish git i grew out of, when i was about 6 i used to think in more capitalist terms. but you dont care, and its not particularly relevant, so moving on...). though, i dont remember being taught in history the "political alignments of turn of the century economists" module. must have missed that along with the names module, i suppose. could you define a good number as a percentage? roughly? i would guess that the majority of them, or certianly the majority of ones trumpeted by the governemnts and business of the time, and therefore the most famous, were capitalists or similar.

and i would say the little communes could gang up to do big projects on big scales voluntarily (so therefore not as a state, as they do it collectively, rather than at one persons behest).

before you read this, i accept your proposal was meant as a joke, but someones gonna raise the point eventually...
to the person who suggest i start a commune somewhere. firstly, right, i need money to buy a fair bit of land to grow food, as you suggest, yeah? so, i need a job. now, itll take a while to raise the cash (as that much land is expensive), so ill need a house. my job wont pay enough to buy a house, so ill need a mortgage, a loan, whatever, yeah? so i need to work that extra bit longer to pay that off too. and a car, or bus fare to get to work on time. also, i dont want to work all the time and die of stress, so i need to do some leisure activities yes? so i need to spend a bit of money on stuff like that. (if i dont do that, the land im on is illegally occupied in the governemtns eyes, and i can be thrown out by armed police) now, by the time ive raised enough cash m gonna be pretty old, and what will i have to show for my lifetimes working? a small plot of land. so, as an old man, i start to build my home, its farm, its workshop, etc from scratch. that winter i die of cold and hunger, as i cant simultaneously build a village, farm a years food and sleep. strikes me as a flawed strategy, and is similar to the "go live in china/rusia/cuba" comments. now, if the governent would give the anarcho-communists a city they dont want, such as glasgow, and clear it out of damn dirty capitalists, and give us the land around for farming, id be their like a shot, as i expect would most other anarcho-coms.

Fallacy of reification.Nope. Society is a group of individuals who have banded together for a common goal. Groups of individuals are perfectly capable of deciding things.

Fallacy of reification, and there's the problem of COERCION.Not at all. Most people choose to live in societies because it is preferable to them than living outside of societies and having to subsistance farm/food gather. No coercion necessary.

Why would the people live in North Korea if it wasn't in their best interest?1) Because they can't leave. 2) Because they can't simply declare their intent to no longer abide by North Korea's decisions, unlike the society that I propose.

Socialist-anarchists:

as i ve said, the economists are hardly going to demonstrate how wrong the system thats given them lots of money and therfore power is, are they?
First off-that's a cop out. The reason for tenure is so that scientists can explore ideas and not have to worry about their paycheck. I've never met a professor who went into teaching for the money either.

There was a man by the name of JM Keynes who provided the economics to support socialism/communism. He was highly regarded until the countries that followed his ideas almost ran their economies into the ground.

I've yet to meet somebody who used to live in a communist country and who still thinks it's a good system.
I've met a good number. I guess living in East Germany must've been relatively better than living in some of those other places.
Fact is that East Germans have for many years continued to vote for the Socialist Ruling Party of years before, first the PDS, now the "Linkspartei".

There was a man by the name of JM Keynes who provided the economics to support socialism/communism. He was highly regarded until the countries that followed his ideas almost ran their economies into the ground.
Have you ever read the General Theory? I suggest you do.

Keynesian economics did not run economies into the ground - getting overenthusiastic did. Keynes himself was a statist, but not an advocate of a large government.
He went into so much technicalities in that book to get around Hayek, who at the time pretty much had to be locked away because he had the rabies as far as Academia was concerned...

Socialist-anarchist:

I can only hope that you will do the following:

Get a copy of a book by a man named Joshua Moravchik called "Heaven On Earth", and read it with an open mind. He was at one time the National President of the Young Communists and he has a great deal of information that you need to know about.

After you've taken your courses in Macro and Micro Economics get a copy of a book called "The Road to Serfdom" by FA Hayek.

That's irrelevant. Communism ignores every economic law there is. It's like trying to fight a war and doing everything that Sun Tzu advised against.

Then why are there communist economists, and why did there used to be a lot of them?

You can doubt it all you like, but that doesn't matter.

Ok...now try to get one billion people to all agree on pizza toppings.

I'd love to see that.

I'm an anarchocapitalist; I'd rather see governments have their power removed by the people just saying "well, that's enough of that crap".

Then why are there theistic socialists? And why did you try a poisoning the well fallacy?

And they were communist, apologist.

surely "economic law" is a nonsense phrase? what a group of capitalists would do is different to what a group of communists would do. or would communists act like capitalists? would they abandon all their beliefs for absolutely no reason?

id guess their was and presumably is communist economists for the same reason their are occasionally decent politicians. few and far between, and the numbers fluctuate, but occasionally you get some. id also guess that a lot of the communist economists were around prior to and during the USSR, and then declined then? thatd be presumably due to entirely understandable dissillusionment brought on by the twat stalin and his bolshevik buddies. just as id guess marxist historians declined in numbers after that ceased to be the only type you could be and live in russia.

equally i dont think it matters that you think my doubting doesnt matter.

well, i imagine 6 billion of us could afford more than one pizza, just as their would be space on earth to try different types of society. you and your anarcho capitalists could try that in maybe the US or whatever, and me and my buddies oculd try ours in the UK, perhaps? id be content with that. i imagine we disagree on basically everything, but so long as we have free travel to your place and you ahve free travel to mine, dissenters could cross to the other place,. opr set up their own place. as ive said you can hardly force a form of government, or non governemnt, on people.

im sure wed all like governemnts to be removed by the people just saying "thats enough of that crap". thats what id like, and what many other anarcho communists want. that would be grand.

their are a maybe 10% theist socialists and 90% of athiest socialists, wiht the reverse true of capitalism (though maybe 70/30 mix) i was just pointing out how he said they were deluded in that sense, yet supported an allegedly perfect system.

and your calling me an apologist for stalin? how does that make ANY sense? i hate him more than you do, id guess. to you, he was a shit, yeah? to me, hes a shit and he gave my political theory an unjustly bad name!

your replies to the other guy are a bit bad too, in my opinion. people could collectively plan what their doin, as is demonstarted by politcial protest movements ran on anarchist lines wiht no real centre, and by anarchist/syndicalist unions with no centre. especially the international ones. also, difference is, in north korea, you get paid shit wages, so cant really afford to come to the US or engalnd, and if you do your homeless, and an asylum seeker, who are (for some reason) hated by a small but imbecillic portion of the population. i imagine the governemnts not too fond of folks leaving, as well. in the anarchisty-communist community, if you left, and went to your anarchist-capitalist society, their wouldnt be any barriers, financial or political, really, as if their was a wage systme, ityd be so much better paid, for one thing, thier wouldnt be rent or mortgages, etc, either, presumably. also, an "anarcho"-capitalist complaining about the problem of coercion is a strange sight...

well, i sorry butve not done an in detail study of the turn of he century economists names, so i dont know his name. however i have it on good authority (a right wing lib dem) that they said that, so i trust him.
I'd rather you did the research.


amusingly, your observation that im not out of high school isnt too far from the truth, though i actually am (off to uni next year, and if anyone makes a stupid, patronising comment that ill grow out of it, like believing in equality and sharing are childish fantasies, then they can shut the hell up.
That's nice. I was making the comment mainly because of your inability to spell and punctuate correctly.


it was in fact being a selfish git i grew out of, when i was about 6 i used to think in more capitalist terms. but you dont care, and its not particularly relevant, so moving on...).
You're correct; your strawman view of capitalism has no relevance.


though, i dont remember being taught in history the "political alignments of turn of the century economists" module. must have missed that along with the names module, i suppose. could you define a good number as a percentage? roughly? i would guess that the majority of them, or certianly the majority of ones trumpeted by the governemnts and business of the time, and therefore the most famous, were capitalists or similar.
No. Most of them were socialists and interventionists.


and i would say the little communes could gang up to do big projects on big scales voluntarily (so therefore not as a state, as they do it collectively, rather than at one persons behest).
And if some in the commune do not agree to it, they must be coerced into it.
Do you even know what capitalism is, or are you just going by the neo-Marxist nonsense that you've been fed on the beeb?

Get a copy of a book by a man named Joshua Moravchik called "Heaven On Earth", and read it with an open mind.
That's Joshua Muravchik, and you can read about the book here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893554457/qid=1130632493/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-8852846-2163011?v=glance&s=books&n=507846).

Good read, btw.

I love the BookList description:
Just a few generations ago, socialism was regarded as the wave of the future by millions of "enlightened" thinkers across the world; the promise of socialism motivated hard-line Marxists, Western-educated men of the Third World who fought for political independence, and Americans and Europeans repelled by the inequalities of capitalism. Now, of course, socialism is widely discredited; even former Communists in Eastern Europe proclaim allegiance to a market economy. This engrossing history of various socialist movements is told through portraits of the leaders who provided the intellectual and political support for those movements. With eloquence, skepticism, and even sympathy, Muravchik examines the careers of figures as varied as Friedrich Engels, Clement Atlee, and Julius Nyerere. Although each had a somewhat different interpretation of socialism, they all shared the fatal assumption that they could use the coercive power of the state to "improve" human nature. This is an important work and an object lesson showing great harm is frequently done by those with the purest motives.

Have you ever read the General Theory? I suggest you do.

Keynesian economics did not run economies into the ground
Yes, it did. The US tried it during the Depression, and that worsened/lengthened it.

[snip your ad hominem of Hayek]

Socialist-anarchists:


First off-that's a cop out. The reason for tenure is so that scientists can explore ideas and not have to worry about their paycheck. I've never met a professor who went into teaching for the money either.

There was a man by the name of JM Keynes who provided the economics to support socialism/communism. He was highly regarded until the countries that followed his ideas almost ran their economies into the ground.


what, so you mean people can do thinks for the love of doing something, rather than simply caring about money and getting one over on the joneses, etc? egad! wonder if that fits in with their theories... i was under the impression keynesianism was a compromise betweeen socialism and capitalism, in a thrid way sense, on account fo a BNP member i was talking to one day mentioning they followed keynesianism. bearing in mind their rabid hatred for sharing wiht people (especially foreigners!) i assumed it wasnt going to be a left wing philosophy, and judging by my quick skim through introducing keynes i got the impression he was no socilaist. still, as i said, BNP member and a quick skim thorugh a book, both of which are really bad at producing anything of intellectual worth, so i could well be wrong.

Yes, it did. The US tried it during the Depression, and that worsened/lengthened it.
And you pull out a set of numbers from mises.com, and I pull out a set of numbers from a different website, and we get all angry at each other and in the end we can't tell anyways...

And besides, the Fed setting interest rate and the like work for our current system, and the Government investing money in the right areas does help an economy. It's all about the way you implement it, as with everything.

[snip your ad hominem of Hayek]
Was it not the case that the majority of academics of his time thought him a bit of an outsider who was great at criticising everyone and everything in the most pedantic ways?
He even admitted it himself in "Road to Serfdom"!

That being said, I think the man is pretty smart, and especially his repeated "this does not imply that everything should be left to the market" and the like impressed me...

well, if those books were freely available id read them, but sadly ive got no money (as everywhere i apply people refuse to employ me, aside from macdonalds (i havent applied their, btw), and id sooner neuter myself with the yellow pages than work there)... but if they are simply criticisms of state socialists, as the quote somewhere by someone implied, then its rather pointless, as im not a state socialist. its like me giving you the black book of [state] communism, and expecting your very core of beliefs to rock. incidentally, is their a black book of capitalism? only seems fair...

surely "economic law" is a nonsense phrase?
No, it isn't.


what a group of capitalists would do is different to what a group of communists would do.
That's nice, but that doesn't matter. Economic laws are basic. They include such things as "all things being equal, a person tends to prefer more of a thing of value to less" and "You can't consume something today and consume the selfsame thing tomorrow".

Communism is an attempt to deny the laws of economics.


id guess their was and presumably is communist economists for the same reason their are occasionally decent politicians.
*laughs*

How much do you really know about communism? Have ever talked to someone who lived in the USSR? I have.


few and far between, and the numbers fluctuate, but occasionally you get some. id also guess that a lot of the communist economists were around prior to and during the USSR, and then declined then? thatd be presumably due to entirely understandable dissillusionment brought on by the twat stalin and his bolshevik buddies.
Ah yes...there's the implicit reference to True Communism™ again.

Stalin, Lenin, et al. implemented communism.


well, i imagine 6 billion of us could afford more than one pizza,
"Society" has to agree on one type only. This is a thought experiment to get you to understand that planning an economy requires infallibility. And humans aren't.


just as their would be space on earth to try different types of society. you and your anarcho capitalists could try that in maybe the US or whatever, and me and my buddies oculd try ours in the UK, perhaps? id be content with that. i imagine we disagree on basically everything, but so long as we have free travel to your place and you ahve free travel to mine, dissenters could cross to the other place,. opr set up their own place. as ive said you can hardly force a form of government, or non governemnt, on people.
Oh, but governments have been forced on people.


im sure wed all like governemnts to be removed by the people just saying "thats enough of that crap". thats what id like, and what many other anarcho communists want. that would be grand.
Actually, anarcho-communists want to replace the state with their own state.


their are a maybe 10% theist socialists and 90% of athiest socialists,
You'd be suprised.


wiht the reverse true of capitalism (though maybe 70/30 mix) i was just pointing out how he said they were deluded in that sense, yet supported an allegedly perfect system.
No, you were trying a poisoning the well fallacy, and now you're trying to back out of it.


and your calling me an apologist for stalin?
I'm calling you an apologist for communism.


how does that make ANY sense? i hate him more than you do, id guess. to you, he was a shit, yeah? to me, hes a shit and he gave my political theory an unjustly bad name!
While he was a paranoid megalomaniac, he fit in perfectly with the communist idea.


your replies to the other guy are a bit bad too, in my opinion.
That's mainly because you have no knowledge of economics.

And there's nothing strange about an anarchocapitalist complaining about coercion.

And you pull out a set of numbers from mises.com, and I pull out a set of numbers from a different website, and we get all angry at each other and in the end we can't tell anyways...
Oh, we can tell that I'm correct.


And besides, the Fed setting interest rate and the like work for our current system, and the Government investing money in the right areas does help an economy. It's all about the way you implement it, as with everything.
It's not working very well.


Was it not the case that the majority of academics of his time thought him a bit of an outsider who was great at criticising everyone and everything in the most pedantic ways?
He even admitted it himself in "Road to Serfdom"!
And yet you ad hom'd him.

Nope.
Yes, you reified society.


Society is a group of individuals who have banded together for a common goal. Groups of individuals are perfectly capable of deciding things.
But "society" is not.


Not at all.
Yes it does exist, for how else will you get those people to go along with the decisions?


1) Because they can't leave.
Irrelevant, according to your ideas.


2) Because they can't simply declare their intent to no longer abide by North Korea's decisions, unlike the society that I propose.
It's the same thing.

incidentally, is their a black book of capitalism? only seems fair...
Well, there's a whole set of Bibles of Capitalism...

Obviously the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith (my criticism would be that it's just too old now).

Free to Choose by Friedman (Milton that is, not David), which is basically "WoN" rewritten.

Road to Serfdom by Hayek is one - apparently Thatcher held that book up in her first cabinet meeting and said "This is what we believe in!!!"

Then other writers would include Gary Becker, Ricardo, von Mises of course, and perhaps Alfred Marshall (the inventor of the Marshellian Cross).

And then another book with a slightly different take, but a good read anyways is
"Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" by Joseph Schumpeter.

well, if those books were freely available id read them, but sadly ive got no money (as everywhere i apply people refuse to employ me, aside from macdonalds (i havent applied their, btw), and id sooner neuter myself with the yellow pages than work there)... but if they are simply criticisms of state socialists, as the quote somewhere by someone implied, then its rather pointless, as im not a state socialist. its like me giving you the black book of [state] communism, and expecting your very core of beliefs to rock. incidentally, is their a black book of capitalism? only seems fair...

I've come to the conclusion that what you refer to as anarcho-communism is what is also referrred to as anarcho-syndicalism (syndicalism meaning a trade union/collective of some sort). Is that correct?

I'd rather you did the research.

That's nice. I was making the comment mainly because of your inability to spell and punctuate correctly.

You're correct; your strawman view of capitalism has no relevance.

No. Most of them were socialists and interventionists.

And if some in the commune do not agree to it, they must be coerced into it.
Do you even know what capitalism is, or are you just going by the neo-Marxist nonsense that you've been fed on the beeb?

well, i assume if a lib dem politics and economics teacher says something about economics (or politics), like "these people said this" i can trust them on that. maybe not on "this is right" but certianly on "communists support communism" kind of assertions.

if you dont agree with what the commune wants DONT BE PART OF THE COMMUNE. its fairly obvious. theirs no compulsion.

coercion would be when you had money, say, and you had to get money from working for a boss, say.

id say i have in fact been to moscow and berlin, and lived with a guy (my dads mate) who was around during the communists. ive already said i dont like state communsim, yet you keep jibbering their only one way for people to share and thats to have it forced upon them, which is demonstrably wrong. that demonstartion is my giving someone something and not being told to, which i do a fair bit.

you frequent assertions about me and "my" True Communism TM, make as much sense as you inevitably saying that this isnt True Capitalism, that adams smiths wonderful dream hasnt yet come true for us. if i were to constantly assert that maggie T was your idea of True Capitalism, with the millions unemployed, and poll tax riots and such, would you say yes it is. just as their is state communsim and anarcho-communism (elimination of governemnt and proerty power), their is state capitalism and anarcho-capitalism (the elimination of governemnt power, but keeping the power of property, i assume?). you would be offended, just as i am, if i constantly asserted you liked something you presumably hate, would you not?

i know for a fact i dont deny that i cant consume what i ate yesterday. i was meaning big assertions like "everyones always wanting more"

society doesa not have to agree on one type. one commune could run itself one way, another another way. ive already said id be relatively content to let your anarcho capitalist area remain, even though i disagree with it, a lot. i wonder if the same level of tolerance could be extended to you?

again, i was simply trying to point out he said the thing about theists and gullability, yet more capitalists than socialists are religious. or do you know my thoughts better than me now? possibly its fortold in your unquestionable economic laws, that cannot possibly be wrong?

i fail to see how the way i wish things to be ran (which is vastly differnt to the way the USSR was ran) and my objections to the way the USSR was ran makes me somehow an apologist. stalin wanted nice,central control of all economic acts, yes? whereas i would like to see the factories owned by those that work in them, rather than by some obscure governemetn official working miles away.

as a final bit, i apologise for my typing, it is crap, but thats because i cant be arsed to read through nor spellcheck (or whatever) it. so long as its legible, surely it doesnt matter? or are you that much of a control freak that you want to tell people how to express themselves?

Well, there's a whole set of Bibles of Capitalism...
what i meant was, their was a book detailing the offences of state-communist swines, but why isnt their a capitalist equivalent? for the TU officials murdered by coke i columbia, for example.

and id say anarcho-communism, -collectivism and -syndicalism are pretty much the same. its largely a matter of tactics, and some small disgreements ike whether moneys worth keeping, and how usefull TUs would be to get rid of the state and capitalism. thats my understanding.

damn, BAAWA, can you not go ten seconds wiohtout claiming anarcho-communists want an oppresive state, despite their statements and actions to the contrary? when the USSR came into being, the anarcho communists werent partying in the streets, now were they?

and surely stateless-capitalist is a more appropriate term for your system, as anarchy has always been anti capitalist (not as a dictionary definition, but certainly as a political theory), until your guys nicked that term, along with libertarian.

does BAAWA stand for anything, out of interest?

what i meant was, their was a book detailing the offences of state-communist swines, but why isnt their a capitalist equivalent? for the TU officials murdered by coke i columbia, for example.
Well, there probably are, but most of them are not particularly credible in the academic world, given that they would've been written either by angry disaffected leftists in Western Europe, or by people under watch from the various Stalinist regimes.

well, i assume if a lib dem politics and economics teacher says something about economics (or politics), like "these people said this" i can trust them on that. maybe not on "this is right" but certianly on "communists support communism" kind of assertions.
On some things.


if you dont agree with what the commune wants DONT BE PART OF THE COMMUNE. its fairly obvious. theirs no compulsion.
How do you know what they will decide until it's decided?


coercion would be when you had money, say, and you had to get money from working for a boss, say.
No, say, that wouldn't, say, be coercion, say.


id say i have in fact been to moscow and berlin, and lived with a guy (my dads mate) who was around during the communists. ive already said i dont like state communsim, yet you keep jibbering their only one way for people to share and thats to have it forced upon them, which is demonstrably wrong.
No, that's called a strawman.


you frequent assertions about me and "my" True Communism TM,
You're the one making the pronouncements about True Communism™. You deal with it.


make as much sense as you inevitably saying that this isnt True Capitalism, that adams smiths wonderful dream hasnt yet come true for us.
Actually, that has nothing to do with it.


if i were to constantly assert that maggie T was your idea of True Capitalism, with the millions unemployed, and poll tax riots and such, would you say yes it is. just as their is state communsim and anarcho-communism (elimination of governemnt and proerty power), their is state capitalism and anarcho-capitalism (the elimination of governemnt power, but keeping the power of property, i assume?).
That didn't parse. But I think you're trying some sort of whine that says "well, I just don't like being shown that the only way communism can work on a large scale is with an oppressive state, so I'm going to cry and say that you're being mean to me for shattering my fantasy."


i know for a fact i dont deny that i cant consume what i ate yesterday.
Communism qua system does, in fact, deny that.

Society doesa not have to agree on one type.
It does when production is involved. There must be a decision as to what to produce where.


one commune could run itself one way, another another way.
Then you have SEPARATE SOCIETIES, and your example dies.


again, i was simply trying to point out he said the thing about theists and gullability, yet more capitalists than socialists are religious.
Not really.


i fail to see how the way i wish things to be ran (which is vastly differnt to the way the USSR was ran) and my objections to the way the USSR was ran makes me somehow an apologist.
You're trying to wipe out the fact that the USSR was communist by making all sorts of ad hoc rationalizations.


stalin wanted nice,central control of all economic acts, yes? whereas i would like to see the factories owned by those that work in them, rather than by some obscure governemetn official working miles away.
Ownership requires property.


as a final bit, i apologise for my typing, it is crap, but thats because i cant be arsed to read through nor spellcheck (or whatever) it. so long as its legible, surely it doesnt matter? or are you that much of a control freak that you want to tell people how to express themselves?
If you don't mind being thought of by me as dimwitted, then please feel free to continue to have atrocious spelling habits.

Well, there probably are, but most of them are not particularly credible in the academic world, given that they would've been written either by angry disaffected leftists in Western Europe, or by people under watch from the various Stalinist regimes.

i hardly think the black book of communism approaches things from a neutral perspective either. surely you cant really quibble that just as if unionist struck in a stalinist state and were shot by police, if they strike in a capitalist state like columbia, or turn of the century UK and US and are attacked by police and killed, both are crimes. you couldnt condemn the first and oppose the latter being refered to as a crime.

oh, and if anyone says that those arent True Capitalist states, then they are, presumably, an apologist for all the worlds ills. because, you know, it says its capitalist, just as soviet russia said it was communist, so it must be true, right?

damn, BAAWA, can you not go ten seconds wiohtout claiming anarcho-communists want an oppresive state, despite their statements and actions to the contrary?
Their statements and actions are contrary to what communism is, then.


and surely stateless-capitalist is a more appropriate term for your system,
No.


as anarchy has always been anti capitalist (not as a dictionary definition, but certainly as a political theory),
The dictionary is correct. If a state is not supported, then it's an anarchist system.

Trouble for the an-coms is: communism requires a government on a large scale.


does BAAWA stand for anything, out of interest?
Bad Ass Atheists With Attitude.

oh, and if anyone says that those arent True Capitalist states, then they are, presumably, an apologist for all the worlds ills. because, you know, it says ts capitalist, just as soviet russia said it was communist, so it must be true, right?
Trouble is: those places aren't capitalist. They are interventionist.

It's called research. Do it.

I believe that Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" might qualify as the Black Book of Capitalism. Zinn's a good commie, history isn't so much a set of facts as it is agitprop for a movement. And if you're going to rely upon Zinn you might as well drink the whole pitcher of Kool-Aid and plow through Chomsky-who says he is an anarcho-syndicalist, BTW.

Allow me to save you the time and give you the gist of what they have to say-America is the focus of all things that are bad and evil in the world. The things that most Americans think are good are actually bad, Americans are just aren't smart enough to know the difference. If everyone would finally just agree with Zinn and Chomsky the world would be a much better place because they're infallible.

i hardly think the black book of communism approaches things from a neutral perspective either...
Well, Noam Chomsky always writes about that kind of thing...
Just put it into Google and you'll get plenty of responses. The World Socialist Web Site (http://www.wsws.org) probably has a lot of material too.
But as I said, the actual factuality of it may be disputed, so don't expect it to work in an argument without back-up evidence.

And look what I found! This might be good for BAAWA too...
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism1.html

The Black Book of Communism was written by people who, in their past, before the Berlin Wall fell, supported state communism. It is their apology to the world for allowing themselves to be co-opted by a lie.

I just want to point out one thing to my friend Socialist-anarchist:
Marx was writing at a time when living conditions for the workers were horrendous and dangerous. The lives they lead were short and brutal. Marx's mistake, the fatal flaw in Marxism, was that he extrapolated those living conditions out and concluded that there would be a workers revolt because conditions would finally be so unbearable that the workers only choices would be to die in the revolt or die in the factory.
50 years later, at around the turn of the century, the exact opposite was a fact. Living conditions improved and life spans increased. The workers revolt has never materialized. Marxism should have died a long time ago. It should be on the ash heap of idiotic ideas in history right along with phrenology, social darwinism and astrology.

On some things.

How do you know what they will decide until it's decided?

No, say, that wouldn't, say, be coercion, say.

No, that's called a strawman.

You're the one making the pronouncements about True Communism™. You deal with it.

Actually, that has nothing to do with it.

That didn't parse. But I think you're trying some sort of whine that says "well, I just don't like being shown that the only way communism can work on a large scale is with an oppressive state, so I'm going to cry and say that you're being mean to me for shattering my fantasy."

Communism qua system does, in fact, deny that.

It does when production is involved. There must be a decision as to what to produce where.

Then you have SEPARATE SOCIETIES, and your example dies.

Not really.

You're trying to wipe out the fact that the USSR was communist by making all sorts of ad hoc rationalizations.

Ownership requires property.

If you don't mind being thought of by me as dimwitted, then please feel free to continue to have atrocious spelling habits.

im sure you already think im dimwitted, as im not an anarcho capitalist, so i must be a real moron, musnt i? and id hardly say its atrocious. i dont put numbers instead of letters, for instance. i type fast, and hit the worng key sometimes. my spelling actually fine.

right you can leave after youve (not theyve) made a collective decision. if everyone else wants to hop up and down all day, and you dont, dont be aprt of the commune. or ask the others to be exempt from their hopping.

"do what i say or your fired and you cant afford food or housing and youll be turfed out" sounds like a bit like coercion to me, especially as stoping someone taking their share of ood or sleeping in a house would require force.

im wondering why im supposed to deal with it. hell, russia and such arent communist in the same way that new orleans wasnt anarchist. its a big mis-labelling. you deal with your bizarre inability to label governments correctly.

actually it has a lot to do with it. you keep insisting that anarcho-communism and state communism are the same, so i shall insist that this system we have now is capitalism, even though you disagree. your just an apologist for maggie! its an exact parralel. their is state communism, and anarcho communism. i deny that state communism of russia etc is in fact communism, and when people say it is, i feel insulted. their is state capitalism and anarcho capitalism. you, being an anarcho capitalist, presumably dont think this society is capitalist, and when we say it is, you feel insulted. you want True Capitalism, in the same way i want True Communism. in your words, deal with it.

okay, demonstrate that communism denies that you cant consume what you produced yesterday.

you can decide what to produce and where. its called organising. people do it all the time even on a wide scale, going back to the old examples of the anarchist protest organisations and unions and such. if you have one group of shoemakers in one place decide to make shoes one way, and shoemakers make them somewhere else with a structure of pay (if they decide to have money), i dont see that causing economy collapsing faults. the shoemakers could send delgates to a big shoemakers conference, perhaps, if bigger problems arose, and solvve it. note, delegates, not representatives.

right then, well, ive never met a religious socialist. i recognize their are some, but all the religious folks i meet are capitalists. id hesitate to describe the catholic church etc as communist. americas largely capitalist, and largely religious. same trend in most places i think.

the USSR wasnt communist though, so its hardly trying to "wipe out" the "fact". just as (to pluck a dictator from the air) Pinochets regieme wasnt capitalist. just becasue people say they are, doesnt mean they are, now does it? are all those places labelled democratic republic of... democracies? of course not.

ownership is perhaps the wrong word. those who work in the factory should control the factory.

Trouble for the an-coms is: communism requires a government on a large scale.

Actually, it doesn't. Remember Spain during the Spanish Civil War? That was pretty much Anarcho-Communism. Patches of Paris back in the late middle ages were Anarcho-Communist through and through.

Instead of working for themselves (or their labor masters), people work for each other. It's basic human nature, and it's sad that most people nowadays think it's human nature to abandon everyone else and "look out for #1".

We're social "animals". That's why groups triumph and hermits accomplish next to nothing.

The Black Book of Communism was written by people who, in their past, before the Berlin Wall fell, supported state communism. It is their apology to the world for allowing themselves to be co-opted by a lie.

I just want to point out one thing to my friend Socialist-anarchist:
Marx was writing at a time when living conditions for the workers were horrendous and dangerous. The lives they lead were short and brutal. Marx's mistake, the fatal flaw in Marxism, was that he extrapolated those living conditions out and concluded that there would be a workers revolt because conditions would finally be so unbearable that the workers only choices would be to die in the revolt or die in the factory.
50 years later, at around the turn of the century, the exact opposite was a fact. Living conditions improved and life spans increased. The workers revolt has never materialized. Marxism should have died a long time ago. It should be on the ash heap of idiotic ideas in history right along with phrenology, social darwinism and astrology.

My thoughts exactly.

Their statements and actions are contrary to what communism is, then.

No.

The dictionary is correct. If a state is not supported, then it's an anarchist system.

Trouble for the an-coms is: communism requires a government on a large scale.

Bad Ass Atheists With Attitude.

no, the political theory of anarchism is correct. the dictionary is a quick summing up. if it had 60 pages of politcal theory under each definintion of capitalism, or communism, or anarchism and such, then it would come in about 4000 volumes. if you told the anarchists fighting in the spanish civil war they werent anarchists, they be less than happy, i reckon. also, if you told any anarchist they were a capitalist, theyd be less than happy. its only recently that a bunch of odd people have stolen the anarcho- prefix.

just as democracy can mean alternately "people rule" and "mob rule", anarchy can be interpreted as "without rulers" and "without government". surely your keeping the private tyrannies of capitalism would create rulers based on cash and job, a la jennifer governments plot (yes, i know its fiction, but its relatively plausible fiction, as fiction goes)?

trouble with saying that communism requires a government on a large scale, is that it doesnt. right, you only need a government to make people do something they dont want to do, and if you dont want to be in an anarcho communist society, they can freely go to wherever they want. the communes could coordinate themselves, voluntarily, to do somehting like a space program or whatever.

ive offered an explaination for why it doesnt need a government, yet you simply make assertions. come on, why?

And look what I found! This might be good for BAAWA too...
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism1.html
Oh look--you found someone else who applies statist thought to anarchism. Great!

Now what precisely does it have to do with anarchocapitalism?

My thoughts exactly.

because of course, history is over, so marxs workers revolt couldnt possibly happen. perhaps the ability of business to ship jobs overseas to india (for example) and get them to work in the bad conditions with badly maintained factories (bhopal?) has simply shifted the place where the bad conditions are. the guys in the sweat shops would hardly agree that their lives are any better. nor would the coke TU member employees murdered in columbia.

because of course, history is over, so marxs workers revolt couldnt possibly happen. perhaps the ability of business to ship jobs overseas to india (for example) and get them to work in the bad conditions with badly maintained factories (bhopal?) has simply shifted the place where the bad conditions are. the guys in the sweat shops would hardly agree that their lives are any better. nor would the coke TU member employees murdered in columbia.

True, but Marx was a bit of a philosophical nut. Revolution in this sense really doesn't work well.

im sure you already think im dimwitted, as im not an anarcho capitalist,
Oh, I wouldn't even get that far. Given your lack of command of basic spelling abilities, I would just pick that.


right you can leave after youve (not theyve) made a collective decision.
A collective decision means they have to as well.

And why should the person leave, anyway?


if everyone else wants to hop up and down all day, and you dont, dont be aprt of the commune. or ask the others to be exempt from their hopping.
Or maybe the whole idea is unsound.


"do what i say or your fired and you cant afford food or housing and youll be turfed out"
....sounds like it comes from someone who has no clue as to what capitalism is and just takes his cues from the neo-marxist crap he sees on TV.

So I'll not be bothering with your strawman, y'see.


im wondering why im supposed to deal with it. hell, russia and such arent communist in the same way that new orleans wasnt anarchist.
No, the USSR was communist. Deal with it.


actually it has a lot to do with it. you keep insisting that anarcho-communism and state communism are the same,
I'm saying that "anarcho-communism" is a contradiction in terms.


so i shall insist that this system we have now is capitalism,
You can try, but your tantrum will ultimately fail, since I have facts on my side.

It's neither my fault nor my problem that you have no knowledge of economics. It's yours, and you need to fix that.



Okay, demonstrate that communism denies that you cant consume what you produced yesterday.
By denying property.


you can decide what to produce and where.
Not on that large of a scale. It's not possible.



right then, well, ive never met a religious socialist.
I see. So your argument is: I have never met a religious socialist, therefore there's so few of them that it doesn't matter, and I just wanted to get out of the poisoning the well fallacy that I committed.


i recognize their are some, but all the religious folks i meet are capitalists. id hesitate to describe the catholic church etc as communist.
Then you've never read the papal encyclica "Populorum Progresso", have you? It's entirely socialist/communist.


the USSR wasnt communist though,
It was.

Actually, it doesn't.
Actually, it does require a government.


Remember Spain during the Spanish Civil War? That was pretty much Anarcho-Communism.
No.


Patches of Paris back in the late middle ages were Anarcho-Communist through and through.
Patches. of.


Instead of working for themselves (or their labor masters), people work for each other. It's basic human nature, and it's sad that most people nowadays think it's human nature to abandon everyone else and "look out for #1".
If you don't look out for yourself, how can you look out for anyone else? Eventually, you won't be able to look out for anyone else because you've denied yourself.

It's sad that some people think that "looking out for #1" is wrong. It's sad that some people foolishly equate that with pure selfishness. It's also sad that some people think it's basic human nature that people work for each other. We all work for our own benefit.

We're social "animals". That's why groups triumph and hermits accomplish next to nothing.[/QUOTE]

I believe that Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" might qualify as the Black Book of Capitalism. Zinn's a good commie, history isn't so much a set of facts as it is agitprop for a movement. And if you're going to rely upon Zinn you might as well drink the whole pitcher of Kool-Aid and plow through Chomsky-who says he is an anarcho-syndicalist, BTW.

Allow me to save you the time and give you the gist of what they have to say-America is the focus of all things that are bad and evil in the world. The things that most Americans think are good are actually bad, Americans are just aren't smart enough to know the difference. If everyone would finally just agree with Zinn and Chomsky the world would be a much better place because they're infallible.

strange because ive read a (tiny) amount of chomsky, and he said something different to that. he pointed out that its not a case of the US governemnt being the source of al evil, though they are some doing bad stuff, but it would be (and was) the same with all massive, powerful nations. Britain when it had its empire was bastardly, as has been every other nation. and he didnt say americans arent smart enough to know the difference. chomsky also refers to himself as a libertarian socialist, and a "fellow traveller" of the anarchist movement, if memory serves me. oh, and theyve never said theyre infallible. just as george bush, for example has never said, "yeah, im wrong.", nor did struass, adam smith, karl marx or anyone else. you dont write a theory then say, "but thats obviously wrong", and bin it.

to say all communists are always wrong and all capitalists are always right is just idiotic. and likewise, btw.

no, the political theory of anarchism is correct.
The political theory is that there is no government. Silly tosswad leftists like to claim that it's only about silly tosswad leftist crap, but it's not. It's about there not being a government. Nothing more. Nothing less. It's like the silly theists who like to claim that atheism is solely and only the outright denial that there is a god, when it's the lack of belief in the existence of a god. Silly people like to use a narrow definition to suit their own silly desires. And the silly tosswad leftists do just that for anarchy.



trouble with saying that communism requires a government on a large scale, is that it doesnt.
Trouble is: it does. There's simply no other way to get the people to all agree like that unless you assume a perfect world.

You've offered no explanations; just rationalizations. Why?

The Black Book of Communism was written by people who, in their past, before the Berlin Wall fell, supported state communism. It is their apology to the world for allowing themselves to be co-opted by a lie.

I just want to point out one thing to my friend Socialist-anarchist:
Marx was writing at a time when living conditions for the workers were horrendous and dangerous. The lives they lead were short and brutal. Marx's mistake, the fatal flaw in Marxism, was that he extrapolated those living conditions out and concluded that there would be a workers revolt because conditions would finally be so unbearable that the workers only choices would be to die in the revolt or die in the factory.
50 years later, at around the turn of the century, the exact opposite was a fact. Living conditions improved and life spans increased. The workers revolt has never materialized. Marxism should have died a long time ago. It should be on the ash heap of idiotic ideas in history right along with phrenology, social darwinism and astrology.
Yes, things did change mainly because of the Socialist movement inspired partly by the works of marx and engels. This was a true socialist movement with the backing of the workers. In most developing countries socialism was blended with the state and the "socialist" government had no workers backing.

Actually, it does require a government.

Whatever you say. Just don't expect me (or any other intelligent debators) to take you seriously.

No.

No, as in "No, I don't remember"? Or no as in "No, that wasn't nearly Anarcho-Communism."? Because if it's the latter, you really need to do some reading.

Patches. of.

Said patches being about a quarter of the entire city. That said, Anarcho-Communism works even in large areas.

If you don't look out for yourself, how can you look out for anyone else? Eventually, you won't be able to look out for anyone else because you've denied yourself.

What. The. Fuck.

It's sad that some people think that "looking out for #1" is wrong. It's sad that some people foolishly equate that with pure selfishness. It's also sad that some people think it's basic human nature that people work for each other. We all work for our own benefit.

We're social "animals". That's why groups triumph and hermits accomplish next to nothing.

1: Yeah, it's wrong, because you're basically saying "fuck you guys, I'm going to horde all the shit I possibly can! Who cares if you fucking die? I'm gonna live like a king!" --- along with other examples. It's not *pure* selfishness in its entirety, but it's pretty fucking selfish.

2: Ah, no. Not even. In societies without money and societies without a means to attain power to control others, people work(ed) for the benefit of each other. We work for our own benefit nowadays because that's the way things have been laid out for us. It's like how people in this country are pretty much expected to go to read a bible and go to church every sunday. Does that sound like human nature to you, hmm?

And, if a true Communist "state" is to come forth, I really don't see what the problem would be. You'd be free to leave if you didn't like it (though I don't know why one wouldn't), though I'm sure a fair amount of imperialist states would want to "spread freedom and Capitalism" in such a territory... I'm talking about the United States, by the way.

Oh, and in an Anarcho-Communist "state", you'd be more than free to work for yourself and your family. Just don't expect others to work for you unless you work for them as well.

Silly tosswad leftists

Troll alert!!!

Do not feed the troll. I repeat: Do. Not. Feed. The. Troll.

No, he didn't. He actually does a very poor job of "summing up" Communism, as he thinks the Soviet way (State Capitalism) is the only way. He seems to know absolutely nothing of Anarcho-Communism, or true Communism.


No, I've read his posts. He understands the concept, he just pretends not to so he can win arguements.

Whatever you say. Just don't expect me (or any other intelligent debators) to take you seriously.
Aha. So you foolishly believe it in the face of reality. Fine with me. Don't expect me (or any other intelligent debators) to take you seriously.


No, as in "No, I don't remember"? Or no as in "No, that wasn't nearly Anarcho-Communism."? Because if it's the latter, you really need to do some reading.
No, I don't; it wasn't anarcho-communism.


Said patches being about a quarter of the entire city. That said, Anarcho-Communism works even in large areas.
No, it doesn't.



What. The. Fuck.
What's the matter--logic and reason just too much for you?



1: Yeah, it's wrong, because you're basically saying "fuck you guys, I'm going to horde all the shit I possibly can!
No, that would be a strawman. And it shows how childish you are for believing such a bald-faced lie.


2: Ah, no. Not even. In societies without money and societies without a means to attain power to control others, people work(ed) for the benefit of each other.
No, they did not. They worked for their own benefit.


We work for our own benefit nowadays because that's the way things have been laid out for us.
No, we work for our own benefit because that's our nature.


And, if a true Communist "state" is to come forth, I really don't see what the problem would be. You'd be free to leave if you didn't like it (though I don't know why one wouldn't),
Oh, the lack of freedom, lack of everything valuable, the tyranny, the slavery...

Just those things.


though I'm sure a fair amount of imperialist states would want to "spread freedom and Capitalism" in such a territory... I'm talking about the United States, by the way.
*laughs*

Did you seriously bring up the old lie of "capitalism is imperialistic"? You don't seriously expect anyone with a modicum of intelligence to believe that lie, do you?


Oh, and in an Anarcho-Communist "state", you'd be more than free to work for yourself and your family. Just don't expect others to work for you unless you work for them as well.
Why would you work for anyone else?

Troll alert!!!
Troll alert!!!!

Do not feed the troll. I repeat: Do. Not. Feed. The. Troll.

strange because ive read a (tiny) amount of chomsky, and he said something different to that. he pointed out that its not a case of the US governemnt being the source of al evil, though they are some doing bad stuff, but it would be (and was) the same with all massive, powerful nations. Britain when it had its empire was bastardly, as has been every other nation. and he didnt say americans arent smart enough to know the difference. chomsky also refers to himself as a libertarian socialist, and a "fellow traveller" of the anarchist movement, if memory serves me. oh, and theyve never said theyre infallible. just as george bush, for example has never said, "yeah, im wrong.", nor did struass, adam smith, karl marx or anyone else. you dont write a theory then say, "but thats obviously wrong", and bin it.

to say all communists are always wrong and all capitalists are always right is just idiotic. and likewise, btw.

I heard Chomsky say in a documentary about himself, that he was an anarcho-syndicalist. The fact that you heard him say something different isn't surprising.
Nevertheless, he defended Pol Pot at first and then when it came out that Pol Pot had wiped out a third of his country's population, he blamed it on the US. Got that-Pol Pot, a communist, killed 1/3 of his countries population in the process of creating a communist paradise and it's the United States' fault.
About Pol Pot, for most of its history Cambodia exported rice. After Pol Pot took over, people starved to death.

I keep hoping it will sink in. I give up. Don't try to turn the world into a workers paradise, I don't want to shoot you.

my final point is that theist means certainty of god, so atheist (me) means the exact opposite of that, ie certainty their is no god. agnostic is the not quite sure category. it stems from greek, i think... just as archist would be for rulers, anarchist would be against rulers. and dont talk about silly leftists etc etc, because stateless capitalism is a fairly recent invention in comparison to anarchism, so i think the first guys to apply the anarchist label knew what they were labelling themselves.

i grow weary of this, partially due to your petty minded insistence that anarchist-communist is a contradiciton in terms, with no backup (and now i note you are accusing me of this despite the fact i feel i have explained why it needs no state repeatedly, quite appropriate really, first you steal my polical theories name, then my arguements), and contrary to anything anyone can say (hell, in an arguement with a god, youd insist you were right...), just repetition, but mainly because where i am its 5 past three in the morning. if indeed the world goes anarchist, as i damn well hope (no matter what you jabber about my being an apologist for stalin and co, a laughable thought) id be quite content to let you live out your life however you chose, but it seems sadly the same cant be said for you towards anyone else. if you still fancy more argueing, just ask someone to put "is not!" after your "is too!" comments. same effect, really. or, look on http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/ (hopefully that address will work), and argue with the guys on the other end of the contact us button after reading it.

ta ta, my insistent friend(s).

yes but not yet - not with the way people think and behave nowadays. sometime in the future human nature may change (a central tenet of communist philosophy) and enable a more altruistic society to emerge.

so in short: not for the timebeing, no. people aren't ready yet and will need to be forced against their will

Well if you're talking about the United Federation of Planets, that would be awesome shit.

But the only way a less stratified and more altruistic society would emerge is if certain events occur forcing us to think less violently and pre-emptively. Change isn't magical, it has to be done by someone.

And in regards to the OP, I think that a form of decentralized communism would work somewhat in agricultural communities, whether they decided to collectivize or not. But I regard capitalism as morst effective.

I heard Chomsky say in a documentary about himself, that he was an anarcho-syndicalist. The fact that you heard him say something different isn't surprising.
Nevertheless, he defended Pol Pot at first and then when it came out that Pol Pot had wiped out a third of his country's population, he blamed it on the US. Got that-Pol Pot, a communist, killed 1/3 of his countries population in the process of creating a communist paradise and it's the United States' fault.
About Pol Pot, for most of its history Cambodia exported rice. After Pol Pot took over, people starved to death.

I keep hoping it will sink in. I give up. Don't try to turn the world into a workers paradise, I don't want to shoot you.

sadly i couldnt leave without replying to this. im as close to pol pot as you are to me, politically, ok? all these GOVERMNENTS that have called themselves communists are nothing to do with my beliefs, ok? they believe in hierarchy, state control and forcing people to live under them. i would be quite happy for other people to live however they want. i am anti-hierarchy. i dont want state control, as the state just runs it like a big coropration. i am for direct workers control, as opposed to the lie of state ownership for the people. i dont want anyone, not even damn dirty capitalists, shot, beaten, tortured etc. so STOP BLOODY CLAIMING I DO! :headbang:

and with that, good bye.

sadly i couldnt leave without replying to this. im as close to pol pot as you are to me, politically, ok? all these GOVERMNENTS that have called themselves communists are nothing to do with my beliefs, ok? they believe in hierarchy, state control and forcing people to live under them. i would be quite happy for other people to live however they want. i am anti-hierarchy. i dont want state control, as the state just runs it like a big coropration. i am for direct workers control, as opposed to the lie of state ownership for the people. i dont want anyone, not even damn dirty capitalists, shot, beaten, tortured etc. so STOP BLOODY CLAIMING I DO!
Communism is heirarchy, state control, tyranny, and oppression. It's not some nice thing.

my final point is that theist means certainty of god, so atheist (me) means the exact opposite of that, ie certainty their is no god.
No, theist means "belief in the existence of a god", and atheist means "lacking the belief in the existence of a god".

Sorta helps to know what the fuck words mean, kiddo.


just as archist would be for rulers, anarchist would be against rulers.
And "bosses" aren't rulers.


and dont talk about silly leftists etc etc,
I will, because they are.


because stateless capitalism is a fairly recent invention in comparison to anarchism, so i think the first guys to apply the anarchist label knew what they were labelling themselves.
Oh, they thought they knew, or were just fooling themselves.


i grow weary of this, partially due to your petty minded insistence that anarchist-communist is a contradiciton in terms,
It's not petty minded; it's the truth. And I backed it up.

If you don't like that you support a system that is inherently despotic, tyrannical, and denies individual rights, then stop supporting that system. It's just that simple.

"In my opinion, nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of socialism as the belief that Russia is a socialist country and that every act of its rulers must be excused, if not imitated. And so for the last ten years, I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the socialist movement."
–George Orwell, Preface to Animal Farm


"Communism is heirarchy, state control, tyranny, and oppression."

Same could be said argued about Christianity in the 16th century.

"In my opinion, nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of socialism as the belief that Russia is a socialist country and that every act of its rulers must be excused, if not imitated. And so for the last ten years, I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the socialist movement."
–George Orwell, Preface to Animal Farm
I reckon Orwell is my favourite socialist ever. He "gets it".

Communism is heirarchy, state control, tyranny, and oppression.
Same could be said argued about Christianity in the 16th century.
Pretty much. But did you have a further point, or were you just giving out the obvious?

Pretty much. But did you have a further point, or were you just giving out the obvious?
It shows the bad side of that religion and what can be done in the name of christianity but roughly 1 billion people are still christian.

It shows the bad side of that religion and what can be done in the name of christianity but roughly 1 billion people are still christian.
Ok....and?

Yes, you reified society.Show me how I reified society.

But "society" is not.If we agree that society is a group of individuals working to achieve a common goal, and that groups of individuals are capable of deciding things, then society is capable of deciding things.

Yes it does exist, for how else will you get those people to go along with the decisions?Because it would be in their best interests to do so. The same reason that people without being coerced do anything.

Irrelevant, according to your ideas.Given that my ideas require that people have the ability to leave, the ability to leave is perfectly relevant to my ideas.

It's the same thing.How is withdrawing from a society the same thing as staying in a society?

I heard Chomsky say in a documentary about himself, that he was an anarcho-syndicalist.Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of libertarian socialism, so if he said both at different times he's being consistent.

I think maybe I should make a post in this thread.

YES. Of course we'll need enforcement initially. You don't think the ex-bourgeoisie are gonna be pissed off that they lost their priveleges and won't need to be suppressed from overthrowing the workers' state? Also, people will of course initially be a little reluctant to try communism as theyve spent their entire lives in capitalism. Gotta be done, though.

YES. Of course we'll need enforcement initially. You don't think the ex-bourgeoisie are gonna be pissed off that they lost their priveleges and won't need to be suppressed from overthrowing the workers' state? Also, people will of course initially be a little reluctant to try communism as theyve spent their entire lives in capitalism. Gotta be done, though.This would be the case in one form of communism, yes. Fortunately, not all forms of communism would be like this.

Ok....and?
I think his point is that lots of people still believe in make-believe, despite all the best efforts of modern thinkers and educators.

This would be the case in one form of communism, yes. Fortunately, not all forms of communism would be like this.
Yeah the other ones just seem to go like this

reformist: Excuse me, mr Bourgeoisie, I know you've like oppressed us using violence for the past few hundred years, but seeing as we've been voted into power, would you mind if we took away your property
Fat cat: Of course not! Here, I'll also relinquish control of the army, police, judiciary and civil service to you as well! Anything else I could do for you?
proleterian voter: Hooray. Now the state controls everything for us workers! Surely this is socialism!

Show me how I reified society.
That it can influence things/do things.


If we agree that society is a group of individuals working to achieve a common goal, and that groups of individuals are capable of deciding things, then society is capable of deciding things.
Reification.


Because it would be in their best interests to do so.
That would need to be demonstrated.


Given that my ideas require that people have the ability to leave, the ability to leave is perfectly relevant to my ideas.
Your idea flies in the face of the reality of it.


How is withdrawing from a society the same thing as staying in a society?
Because it isn't withdrawing from society.

I think his point is that lots of people still believe in make-believe, despite all the best efforts of modern thinkers and educators.
Yes: a lot of people believe that human interaction can work fine on any large (or even relatively small) scale without defined property rights, etc.

Yes: a lot of people believe that human interaction can work fine on any large (or even relatively small) scale without defined property rights, etc.
And if wishes were horses ...

What modern society has ever survived, let alone thrived, without well defined property rights? I'm not talking about Indians in South America, I mean societies that maintain the trappings of progress.

And if wishes were horses ...

What modern society has ever survived, let alone thrived, without well defined property rights? I'm not talking about Indians in South America, I mean societies that maintain the trappings of progress.
Beats me. Any time that property rights go away, so does any real semblance of society.

In fact, on small scales, it can be even more devastating. A communal strucuture was tried in the Plymouth colony. Within the 1st year, about 2/3 of the people died of starvation. When the new governor arrived and implemented a system of individual property rights, the colony prospered.

Beats me. Any time that property rights go away, so does any real semblance of society.

In fact, on small scales, it can be even more devastating. A communal strucuture was tried in the Plymouth colony. Within the 1st year, about 2/3 of the people died of starvation. When the new governor arrived and implemented a system of individual property rights, the colony prospered.
Damn, it's deja-vu all over again. Didn't I use that example earlier in this thread?

Yeah the other ones just seem to go like this

reformist: Excuse me, mr Bourgeoisie, I know you've like oppressed us using violence for the past few hundred years, but seeing as we've been voted into power, would you mind if we took away your property
Fat cat: Of course not! Here, I'll also relinquish control of the army, police, judiciary and civil service to you as well! Anything else I could do for you?
proleterian voter: Hooray. Now the state controls everything for us workers! Surely this is socialism!
I can totally see that happening. See, all you've got to do is put massive quantities of tranquilizers in the water supply...

Socialists-anarchists:
sadly i couldnt leave without replying to this. im as close to pol pot as you are to me, politically, ok? all these GOVERMNENTS that have called themselves communists are nothing to do with my beliefs, ok? they believe in hierarchy, state control and forcing people to live under them. i would be quite happy for other people to live however they want. i am anti-hierarchy. i dont want state control, as the state just runs it like a big coropration. i am for direct workers control, as opposed to the lie of state ownership for the people.

I wasn't comparing you to Pol Pot little buddy.

You have to ask yourself some questions:

To start with, why are things the way they are? Why do corporations thrive and why is it that humans have chosen this path as opposed to the one that you propose? Doesn't it seem odd to you that, according to your way of thinking, we're doing it all wrong and have been for 400 years? That would be 400 years of continual improvements in the quality of life and the human condition. Technological marvels exist today that 200 years ago were not even dreamt of. Yet we managed to do without becoming anarcho-communists.
Is it possible that maybe the reason things are done the way they are, in the context of this discussion, because it's the easiest way to do it (note I did not say it was the best way)? That it's a tried and true paradigm that it is open to innovation and improvement so it has survived?

The more I've read on anarcho-syndicalism the more I've realized the similarities between the way things are done now and the way that you would like. Absent property rights, profit motive and a government, what you are talking about is what we have now. Corporate employees can buy stock in the company they work for can't they? Corporations, in spite of the profit motive, offer benefits.

In the end, you're advocating taking the long way around to where we are now.

I forgot to mention my point on Pol Pot.

Of all the worker's paradises that the communists ever endeavored to create, Cambodia came the closest to what you advocate. The cities were emptied and everyone was put into a collective in the countryside. The goal was to eliminate any vestige of capitalism and finally create the new socialist man in a short amount of time.
Chomsky saw his anarcho-syndicalist dream coming to fruition and praised what Pol Pot was doing for that reason. Pol Pot wanted to eliminate the government. Of course in the initial phase of any anarcho syndicalist movement there needs to be a government to provide stability, so why not Pol Pot.
I believe that you are like most people and want nothing but good to come from your dream. I don't think that you want to create hell on earth. Unfortunately, neither did your predecessors and look what happened.
A bit of free advice (so take it for what it's worth), quit wasting your intellectual energy on this nonsense. If you devote your time to learning about the way things are and stop thinking about the way they should be, you will come out ahead in life. Start thinking about the way things ought to be after you're more familiar with the way things are.

Reification.Uh...the only actual argument you can have against what I've said is against either (A)Society is a group of individuals working together for a common goal or (B)Groups of individuals can make decisions. If you agree with both of these points, then (C)Society makes decisions is factual. Do you disagree or agree with points A and B?

Your idea flies in the face of the reality of it.There have been few realities of it, which is why it's mostly an idea.

Because it isn't withdrawing from society.No, but it would be withdrawing from a society.

Beats me. Any time that property rights go away, so does any real semblance of society.Who said anything about taking away all property rights?

In fact, on small scales, it can be even more devastating. A communal strucuture was tried in the Plymouth colony. Within the 1st year, about 2/3 of the people died of starvation. When the new governor arrived and implemented a system of individual property rights, the colony prospered.Winter does tend to make crops fail, and spring does tend to make them grow, so I don't see your point here.

Uh...the only actual argument you can have against what I've said is against either (A)Society is a group of individuals working together for a common goal or (B)Groups of individuals can make decisions. If you agree with both of these points, then (C)Society makes decisions is factual. Do you disagree or agree with points A and B?
C is a reification. Sorry.


There have been few realities of it, which is why it's mostly an idea.
There have been enough to show that it sucks.


No, but it would be withdrawing from a society.
Show it.


Who said anything about taking away all property rights?
Marx did. Big. Huge. Bold letters. In the Manifesto. ABOLITION OF ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.


Winter does tend to make crops fail, and spring does tend to make them grow, so I don't see your point here.
Probably because you don't know anything about the Plymouth colony. Why don't you read up on how Plymouth was originally created as a commune, and how bad things were. Free-ridership abounded. In particular, do read up on what happened when William Bradford essentially re-created the colony as one with private property. You can order the book version of his writings from Barnes & Noble (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=ve3VYqNCRA&isbn=0075542811&TXT=Y&itm=4).

So--got anything else?

The USSR grew into the world's second largest economy after starting with nothing, in a shorter time than the western nations did so.

The USSR was a Third World shit-hole that could barely feed its citizens. If it hadn't been for massive trade with the West, it would collapsed after a very short period of time. If it hadn't been for the huge shipments of grain sent by the U.S., many of their people would have starved. Ironically, it was the U.S. (falsely regarded as an "anticommunist" nation) that came in again and again and again, to save the USSR from collapse. In 1921, after the colossal failure of Lenin's socialist policies (when he implemented the NEP), Secretary of Commerce Hoover went to Russia and begged President Harding to give the communists aid. The aid sent by the West was all that kept the communist regime from collapsing in that period. In the 1930s, it was communist Roosevelt's massive aid that again saved the USSR from imminent collapse.

Someone said a while back up there how come there are so many left wingers. without being nasty i would like to say how come there are so many intelligent and social minded unselfish people out there. is there a connection i wonder. ;) Also i would like to point out that anyone who doesnt see the ideal of True Communism as real obviously falls under the following categories (My explanation of Superior genes and right wing thinking as a weakness.)

Right winger marries right winger. child is right wing with small possiblity of left wing.
Left-Right.
Child often sees sense and is left.
left-left.
left.
Someone only becomes right when something happens to make them see right wing parties as beneficial to them alone.
Eg a left winger gaining huge riches and becoming right wing.
I DISOWN THESE LEFTS!! arghh traitors. ahem.
Or the possibility exists that they would stay left wing :) good for them.

once you realise the above you must realise that eventually everyone will be left wing with very few righties. (Prayin for the day) and that once this occurs a slow leftward drift will occur also, or a rightward one where the above process repeats until the leftward one occurs.
once the leftward drift goes far enough there will Only be socially minded people (And a few selfish righties) who will most likely slowly lose money due and become lefties anyway. at this point true communism can take place.

But not yet ;)

Originally Posted by Jello Biafra
Who said anything about taking away all property rights?
During the French Revolution a man by the name of Gracchus Babeuf started a group called "The Conspiracy of Equals". He is regarded as the father of the socialist movement and he wrote volumns on eliminating private property rights as a way to achieve equality.

"Liberte, Equalite, Fraternite"
Liberte and Fraternite had been given the most attention and were easily resolved but "Equalite" proved to be a more intractable problem to solve because there were others that thought taking away private property rights was too radical.

Babeuf was beheaded but his followers kept his writings alive and eventually the issue was settled by Marx and Engels. There could never be a true socialism if property rights existed for individuals. Socialisms main purpose is working to achieve equality.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/Babeuf-F
You don't know what you're talking about. Your name is apt.