NationStates Jolt Archive

Those are the peoples' cookies, mind. You'd best share them.

I made the cookies, so I can give them to whoever the fuck I want. No secret police force is going to tell me otherwise, because said police force doesn't exist.

Communism is about freedom, not control. Head-in-ass, eat your heart out.

I am anti-communist. So far, no one has been able to pull it off without oppressing someone.

I am anti-communist. So far, no one has been able to pull it off without oppressing someone.

The Paris Commune. Spain in the 1930's.

Two excellent examples of Communism working in highly-populated areas to great effect, though it's a sad thought that the Paris Commune was eventually dissolved, and the Fascists took power of Spain with the help of Germany.

The Paris Commune. Spain in the 1930's.

Two excellent examples of Communism working in highly-populated areas to great effect, though it's a sad thought that the Paris Commune was eventually dissolved, and the Fascists took power of Spain with the help of Germany.

Exactly. Even if "dissolved", speaking of Paris' Commune, is really beyond the reality. It was slaughtered, that's the word. More than 100,000 death in one week and 50,000 deported to forced labour, in a city of 2 millions, that's a slaughtering.

Exactly. Even if "dissolved", speaking of Paris' Commune, is really beyond the reality. It was slaughtered, that's the word. More than 100,000 death in one week and 50,000 deported to forced labour, in a city of 2 millions, that's a slaughtering.

Yeah, I guess "slaughter" would be a more historically-correct term.

*sigh*

Such things happen when labor masters are allowed to exist.

I made the cookies, so I can give them to whoever the fuck I want.
What if you wanted to keep them for yourself? What if you wanted to flush them all down your toilet?

What if you wanted to exchange them for something someone else made?

What if you wanted to keep them for yourself? What if you wanted to flush them all down your toilet?

What if you wanted to exchange them for something someone else made?

Any of the above are fine. even this.

*shoves cookies up your nose*

Nyah!

Anti on paper need I say more for its practice.

Marx was somewhat idealistic and missinformed for his time period, now so the ideas are truely and horribly out of date.
Yeah pure capitalism is a dangerous wepon and leads to stuff like the 1930's depression and worse but capitalism has evolved mixed economys have proven to be efficient and stable and the only realistic option. Yes some undeserving people are still poor and born into poverty and thats bad, but taking away private property and with it any egotistical self motivation along with the dangers of a fully state run economy (which with its vastness shouldn't be done by a small group anyway) is an awful idea and in practice can't even deliver the ideas which even on paper take away rights and opportunitys I regard sacred.

pro - of marxism and other forms, not stalinism or maoism.

pro - of marxism and other forms, not stalinism or maoism.

Did Stalin even have an "Ism"? He just seemed to just take a handy dictatorship and while Lenis left terror to outside party members Stalin just felt the need to attack everyone against him.

Any of the above are fine.
Exactly.

And that's why I don't have a beef with Anarcho-Communism. Because those who want to take part in it can, and those that don't can leave and join a capitalist society.

Exactly.

And that's why I don't have a beef with Anarcho-Communism. Because those who want to take part in it can, and those that don't can leave and join a capitalist society.

Yip. No such luck if a planet advances to the point where it's completely Anarcho-Communist, but then there would really be no need for anyone to want to join a Capitalist society (then again, there really wouldn't be in the first place).

Exactly.

And that's why I don't have a beef with Anarcho-Communism. Because those who want to take part in it can, and those that don't can leave and join a capitalist society.

Anarcho communism as I recall requires revolution and terrorism generally alienates the public and strengthens the current government. Not to meantion with no government yourself you're vulnarable to counter revolution as Marx himself was critical of.

Do you honestly think you can create this society and then tell all the capitalists thanks for all your stuff now go ahead and leave to some other capitalist country if you don't like what we've done, is ever gonna work...

Anarcho communism as I recall requires revolution and terrorism generally alienates the public and strengthens the current government. Not to meantion with no government yourself you're vulnarable to counter revolution as Marx himself was critical of.

You obviously read a very misleading, uninformed piece of literature. Anarcho-Communism is reformist, whereas Marxist "Communism" is revolutionary.

I'm communist. But since I'm 13, I am not part of the party. Gotta wait till I'm 18. But being patriotic about freedom and civil rights will keep me out of the military. Is that retarded or is that retarded? I should be able to tbe in the military no matter my political orientation!

I'm a Reaganite. So I'm Anti-Communist, through and through.

You obviously read a very misleading, uninformed piece of literature. Anarcho-Communism is reformist, whereas Marxist "Communism" is revolutionary.

As far as I've been tought Bakunin alienated by the violent methods anarcho communism used he helped form anarcho syndicalism.

:rolleyes:
i am anti communistic because it deprives individuals of their rights and to own their own business

Do you honestly think you can create this society and then tell all the capitalists thanks for all your stuff now go ahead and leave to some other capitalist country if you don't like what we've done, is ever gonna work...
I made a thread some months ago about various Anarchist philosophies and how people intend to get there. One of the things I got out of that was that Anarcho-Capitalists and Anarcho-Communists should really work together, because ultimately they can coexist quite well.

I'll try to find it, but the search-function is being a bitch.

As far as I've been tought Bakunin alienated by the violent methods anarcho communism used he helped form anarcho syndicalism.

...Okaaay...

There's no violence in Anarcho-Communism. The only violence that happens is when outside forces try to seize the power of communes, like Paris in the 19th century.

:rolleyes:
i am anti communistic because it deprives individuals of their rights and to own their own business

Quite far from the truth. Anarcho-Communism allows one to do whatever he pleases. Even own a business.

...Okaaay...

There's no violence in Anarcho-Communism. The only violence that happens is when outside forces try to seize the power of communes, like Paris in the 19th century.

I see. Its peacefull as long as everyone co-operates :rolleyes:

I made a thread some months ago about various Anarchist philosophies and how people intend to get there. One of the things I got out of that was that Anarcho-Capitalists and Anarcho-Communists should really work together, because ultimately they can coexist quite well.

I'll try to find it, but the search-function is being a bitch.

Yeah, I find it odd that many "Libertarians" and Anarcho-Capitalists (read: Objectivists) are blind to this.

I'm Pro Marxism... and anarcho-communism, and anarchism. I can't be arsed to state my reasons extensively (tired =\), but to sum it up in two words, "I concur".


/yawn/

I see. Its peacefull as long as everyone co-operates :rolleyes:

You know exactly what I was saying.

Outside forces, in the past, have subjugated communes (Paris in the 1800's and Spain in the 1930's) simply because they could. The communes were the peaceful places --- the outsiders were the ruthless aggressors.

Thousands were killed when the Paris Commune was seized. Many thousands more were killed in the Spanish Civil War at the hands of the Nazis and Spanish Nationalists.

Quite far from the truth. Anarcho-Communism allows one to do whatever he pleases. Even own a business.

How about employing someone?

Quite far from the truth. Anarcho-Communism allows one to do whatever he pleases. Even own a business.

Commonownership or actual ownership.

How about employing someone?

If they agree to the terms you set, of course. Whether or not they'll agree is another thing entirely.

I love communism.

If they agree to the terms you set, of course. Whether or not they'll agree is another thing entirely.

How does it insure that the agreement is met on equal terms?

Commonownership or actual ownership.

Just because it's Communism doesn't mean a business can't be owned by somebody.

You know exactly what I was saying.

Outside forces, in the past, have subjugated communes (Paris in the 1800's and Spain in the 1930's) simply because they could. The communes were the peaceful places --- the outsiders were the ruthless aggressors.

Thousands were killed when the Paris Commune was seized. Many thousands more were killed in the Spanish Civil War at the hands of the Nazis and Spanish Nationalists.

But say this movement were to occur in Britain, collectivisation and common ownership would occur and surely someone looking to keep his private property or bussiness couldn't be called a ruthless agressor, more so the group trying to take the property.

How does it insure that the agreement is met on equal terms?
...I am so confused right now...

If everyone in Anarcho-Communism is free to do exactly what they want, all parties agree to all deals, you can own and run a business - then how is that different from Anarcho-Capitalism, or any other form of Anarchism for that matter?

Private property is not a right. Capital is a result of the working class, and the working class must own all of the means of production, because it is the working class the produces the wealth.

Just because it's Communism doesn't mean a business can't be owned by somebody.

Didn't Marx reject the entire case for material incentives, that incentive comes from contributing to the common good. Where does owning a business and employing people (at agreed terms that might not be equal) come into his philosophy.

How does it insure that the agreement is met on equal terms?

Well, if the business owner is desperate for employees, he'll likely bargain for good terms. But everybody would have their own terms in such a system, seeing as there's no market economy to dictate what's good and what isn't.

It's completely subjective.

Private property is not a right. Capital is a result of the working class, and the working class must own all of the means of production, because it is the working class the produces the wealth.

Except production is a very unskilled position much of which is being replaced by basic machines vastly superior to most common workers.

...I am so confused right now...

If everyone in Anarcho-Communism is free to do exactly what they want, all parties agree to all deals, you can own and run a business - then how is that different from Anarcho-Capitalism, or any other form of Anarchism for that matter?

Anarcho-Capitalism assumes there's a market economy. Anarcho-Communism assumes otherwise. That's the real difference between them, and if you look at it, it's a pretty significant one.

I'm not communist. While I do believe everyone should have an equal chance at life, to force everyone to stay equal regardless of what they do is unfair. It works very well in poverty or war-stricken nations as stability and survival are difficult to achieve, but anywhere else it's just unecessary. If a country is to flourish ultimately people need to be given an equal chance at start but be allowed to rise or fall on their own merits. Perhaps some strange hybrid of a free market and communism, taking the best qualities of both, would be best.

Yay. Found the thread.

Anarcho-[Insert your favourite 'ism] (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450431)
No. First, I would get a lot of ancons together in one area and we would begin to build businesses, have farms, etc. The U.S. Constitution has a set process for becoming a town. So then we would do that. Once we got big enough, have a few towns or one city, we could become a state. Breaking off from a previous state isn't done regularly, but it has been done before, so there is a precedent. The only thing that (so far) can't be done democratically is seceding from the country. While it hasn't been done, I believe it possibly could be if tested in the courts. The last time someone did secede from the country, they started a war, but I doubt this would happen if it were done democratically.

Didn't Marx reject the entire case for material incentives, that incentive comes from contributing to the common good. Where does owning a business and employing people (at agreed terms that might not be equal) come into his philosophy.

I thought it was obvious that I wasn't a Marxist. I guess not.

Karl Marx didn't "invent" Communism. It's been around for ages; his version is an infinitely perverted, inane system of working-class lordship.

Well, if the business owner is desperate for employees, he'll likely bargain for good terms. But everybody would have their own terms in such a system, seeing as there's no market economy to dictate what's good and what isn't.

It's completely subjective.

How is there no market economy?

Anarcho-Capitalism assumes there's a market economy.
Well, strictly speaking, to a real anarcho-capitalist, the economy could go to hell in a handbasket. What matters to that breed is that every individual is free to exchange with others and achieve the best he or she can do.

I'm not communist. While I do believe everyone should have an equal chance at life, to force everyone to stay equal regardless of what they do is unfair. It works very well in poverty or war-stricken nations as stability and survival are difficult to achieve, but anywhere else it's just unecessary. If a country is to flourish ultimately people need to be given an equal chance at start but be allowed to rise or fall on their own merits. Perhaps some strange hybrid of a free market and communism, taking the best qualities of both, would be best.

To me politics has never been about if we should be communist or laissez fair free market. Its a matter of asking, how mixed should our mixed economy be.

i am very pro communism..

one person gets rich, while others starve, that is so wrong, we all work.. we all benefit...

How is there no market economy?

There is no stock market, and there aren't banks to control the flow of money.

Value of products wouldn't be dictated by establishments or the flow of an official currency.

There is no stock market, and there aren't banks to control the flow of money.
Well, stock markets and banks are just ways in which others can partake or help with someone's achievements.
Why and how would you outlaw that?

Value of products wouldn't be dictated by establishments or the flow of an official currency.
Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't have a currency. They want to use gold, because that has an objective value that everyone accepts, but it is not controlled by anyone.
Alternatively, they would allow everyone to make their own currency, and it's up to the others to accept it or not.

i am very pro communism..

one person gets rich, while others starve, that is so wrong, we all work.. we all benefit...

Why turn to communism. Surely basic welfare and free education can ensure everyone has the opportunity to gain wealth and no one starves.

Well, stock markets and banks are just ways in which others can partake or help with someone's achievements.
Why and how would you outlaw that?


Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't have a currency. They want to use gold, because that has an objective value that everyone accepts, but it is not controlled by anyone.
Alternatively, they would allow everyone to make their own currency, and it's up to the others to accept it or not.

1: Hm, good point. I guess it's not so much the banks and markets as the government establishments that set standards and precedents over such things.

2: So they wish to use gold as a de facto currency, then. I can see why they would, but there are also a lot of problems that might arise, as it's a pretty limited resource.

Well, strictly speaking, to a real anarcho-capitalist, the economy could go to hell in a handbasket. What matters to that breed is that every individual is free to exchange with others and achieve the best he or she can do.

I think most anarcho-capitalists think that the economy would have disturbances in recovering from government interference, and eventually would find some stability (if you want to call the business cycle stable).

I know the Keynes in you would disagree.

Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't have a currency. They want to use gold, because that has an objective value that everyone accepts, but it is not controlled by anyone.
Alternatively, they would allow everyone to make their own currency, and it's up to the others to accept it or not.

I think both apply as the key is the elimination of legal tender laws.

You can use whatever the hell you want.

I am anti-communist because I believe that the bright minds who support it would be better used contributing to ideas among other things that could actually be successful.

I know the Keynes in you would disagree.
Oh, I've been going through all sorts of debates with myself. Maybe I'll start an update on what I think and believe in the next few days...suffice to say that romantic capitalism is getting to me, the more I have to work together with the incompetents who populate my university. :p

I think both apply as the key is the elimination of legal tender laws.

You can use whatever the hell you want.

I wouldn't mind trading computers for beef, myself. Tacos, even.

Chocolate, perhaps...

So they wish to use gold as a de facto currency, then. I can see why they would, but there are also a lot of problems that might arise, as it's a pretty limited resource.
Well, it's a lot more realistic than a barter economy.

At any rate, I don't think gold shortages would be much of a problem, it would just mean that your gold buys more things. I think the problem comes when people learn how to manipulate molecules and atoms to create gold themselves.

Well, it's a lot more realistic than a barter economy.

At any rate, I don't think gold shortages would be much of a problem, it would just mean that your gold buys more things. I think the problem comes when people learn how to manipulate molecules and atoms to create gold themselves.

True, true.

Manipulate molecules and atoms to create gold, you say?

*gets wild and crazy ideas*

I wouldn't mind trading computers for beef, myself. Tacos, even.

Chocolate, perhaps...

You are getting close to a wage-labor market economy here.

You are getting close to a wage-labor market economy here.

Yeah, but just because I'd accept foodstuffs for services doesn't mean everyone else will. As I said, it's totally subjective.

A de facto currency could theoretically pop up, but then, anything's possible.