NationStates Jolt Archive

And what is actually so bad about communism? It is a fantastic idea - it just hasn't worked anywhere. I doubt that you even KNOW what Communism is. The media in America, (and dumbass presidents) have made communism out to be some sort of idea which is as bad as the Nazi Party. It's a wonderful idea, but America could never be a communist country - there's too many greedy people there (I'm not saying all Americans are greedy. I'm just saying that there are MANY MANY americans who are.) I will explain it to you. Please listen to it, because I dont think you actually have a clue what you are talking about.

Communism is the idea that EVERYONE is equal, it is a classless society, no one leads and no one follows. It's basically the idea of a perfect society, a utopia, if you like. However, humans are too power-motivated, hence why it doesn't worked. Communism isn't an evil thing, Americans look like complete dumbasses to the rest of the world when they say they hate Communism. Everyone knows what it means. Except the majority of America, it seems. So acknowledge this, please. This is what communism is.

. . . Umm, ok, no. I will not throw out why I think communism is completely wrong in every way because you think it is a Utopia... even if it failed... horribly. I will explain to you why many Americans feel communism is Bad.

here we go: Communism as defined by Karl Marx is: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." & "The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." These are both quotes coined by Karl Marx, a man who never worked a day in his life.

It is the absolute opposite of Humanity, Individuality, and Sentience. It states that nothing should be privatized, everything should be public property. In a communist society, you do not own your body, the state does. They have higher authority over your life than you. The hope for many pro-communist people is that it could eliminate selfishness, or greediness. To many people this may sound like an intoxicating and enlightened philosophy, until you add the human part of the equation.

All living things are by nature selfish, it would be absolutely impossible for them to survive otherwise. selfishness is doing something for your own gain, for yourself, or for how something makes you feel. Communism goes against this idea in the fact that it believes forced altruism is the ultimate ideal, but you cannot force someone to be giving, it simply creates envy, angst, and feelings of being cheated, and in many ways it is cheating people out of their just earned rewards. Charity is exactly that, charity. It should never be forced upon other people to help their neighbor, and that neighbor should never expect it from others.

When a society puts together everything they have after working and everyone gets an equal slice of the pie, it destroys any incentive for working. if Jon Doe sits on his butt all day and doesn't work, but gets the same thing that I do, and I genuinely work, I'll be less driven to work harder the next day. The lazy Jon Doe will have absolute no incentive for working harder the next day, except for seeing the rewards of 1 : population-size ratio of his effort spent, which isn't high at all, especially when he's getting a slice of every else's pie.

All in all, forced altruism, or communism works completely against it's own goals. It benefits the lazy and punishes the hard working, and destroys incentive. Selfishness is not an evil aspect of Humanity, all of us have it, and we always will, live with it. Selfishness is only harmful when someone is selfish at the expense of another person, through theft, fraud or other means.

I will end this on the final note that everyone needs to stop saying, "Communism is a great theory, just not in practice", this line makes me sick. ANY other scientific or political theory which has completely failed in practice is considered, you guessed it, a bad theory.

. . . Umm, ok, no. I will not throw out why I think communism is completely wrong in every way because you think it is a Utopia... even if it failed... horribly. I will explain to you why many Americans feel communism is Bad.

here we go: Communism as defined by Karl Marx is: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." & "The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." These are both quotes coined by Karl Marx, a man who never worked a day in his life.

It is the absolute opposite of Humanity, Individuality, and Sentience. It states that nothing should be privatized, everything should be public property. In a communist society, you do not own your body, the state does. They have higher authority over your life than you. The hope for many pro-communist people is that it could eliminate selfishness, or greediness. To many people this may sound like an intoxicating and enlightened philosophy, until you add the human part of the equation.

All living things are by nature selfish, it would be absolutely impossible for them to survive otherwise. selfishness is doing something for your own gain, for yourself, or for how something makes you feel. Communism goes against this idea in the fact that it believes forced altruism is the ultimate ideal, but you cannot force someone to be giving, it simply creates envy, angst, and feelings of being cheated, and in many ways it is cheating people out of their just earned rewards. Charity is exactly that, charity. It should never be forced upon other people to help their neighbor, and that neighbor should never expect it from others.

When a society puts together everything they have after working and everyone gets an equal slice of the pie, it destroys any incentive for working. if Jon Doe sits on his butt all day and doesn't work, but gets the same thing that I do, and I genuinely work, I'll be less driven to work harder the next day. The lazy Jon Doe will have absolute no incentive for working harder the next day, except for seeing the rewards of 1 : population-size ratio of his effort spent, which isn't high at all, especially when he's getting a slice of every else's pie.

All in all, forced altruism, or communism works completely against it's own goals. It benefits the lazy and punishes the hard working, and destroys incentive. Selfishness is not an evil aspect of Humanity, all of us have it, and we always will, live with it. Selfishness is only harmful when someone is selfish at the expense of another person, through theft, fraud or other means.

I will end this on the final note that everyone needs to stop saying, "Communism is a great theory, just not in practice", this line makes me sick. ANY other scientific or political theory which has completely failed in practice is considered, you guessed it, a bad theory.

*cough* Spanish Revolution *cough* Argentine syndicalism *cough*

Stop associating all communists with your naive and unfounded caricature of authoritarian Marxist-Leninists.

Communism =/= forced altruism since communism is defined as a stateless, classless society. No state to coerce, and no class structure to dominate people. The state can't own you or control you if it's been smashed.

It is not predicated on altruistic behavior, and it doesn't require people to give up self-interest. It merely requires that people do not act with capricious self-interest.

*cough* Spanish Revolution *cough* Argentine syndicalism *cough*

Stop associating all communists with your naive and unfounded caricature of authoritarian Marxist-Leninists.

Communism =/= forced altruism since communism is defined as a stateless, classless society. No state to coerce, and no class structure to dominate people. The state can't own you or control you if it's been smashed.

It is not predicated on altruistic behavior, and it doesn't require people to give up self-interest. It merely requires that people do not act with capricious self-interest.

I like how you admonish your opponent for not being familiar with Communism while you yourself are showing a stark and shocking ignorance of it. Communism is meant to result in a "Stateless, Classless Society" (which doesn't and can't exist, by the way), but it relies on the abolition of private property and the strengthening of Party control over everyday life to attain this goal. The fundamental problem here is that to execute any social or economic policy on a national scale requires the existence of an entity to form and enforce rules. This is a blatant contradiction of Communism's own, stated aims.

Marx may not have intentionally predicated Communism on any such "altruistic ideals," (Communism, as he repeatedly stated over the duration of his lifetime, was a political theory) but its adherants quickly discovered that the only way they could get people behind them was to play the trumpet of the altruist. Regardless, the points made earlier about selfishness and survival are 100% correct, and whether Marx used Altrusim as his basis for Communism is immaterial in the face of that consideration.

Communism is meant to result in a "Stateless, Classless Society" (which doesn't and can't exist, by the way), but it relies on the abolition of private property and the strengthening of Party control over everyday life to attain this goal.

The funny part is that in replying to Trotskylvania's post about not associating all communists with authoritarian Marxism-Leninism, you go ahead and to exactly that... without justification.

There are more theories than Marx's theories, and more interpretations of Marx's theories than Lenin's.

The fundamental problem here is that to execute any social or economic policy on a national scale requires the existence of an entity to form and enforce rules. This is a blatant contradiction of Communism's own, stated aims.

Well, only if you choose to disregard the fact that the Marxist definition of the state isn't yours.

There is no ruling class, and no organized repressive entity to enforce its rule.

The funny part is that in replying to Trotskylvania's post about not associating all communists with authoritarian Marxism-Leninism, you go ahead and to exactly that... without justification.

There are more theories than Marx's theories, and more interpretations of Marx's theories than Lenin's.
I am aware of and unimpressed with the differences between the "Old Left" and the "New Left." That the New Left is scrambling to put a different face on the same old tired, garbage ideas is of absolutely no consequence to me. Whether a specific communist philosopher deviates from Marx just enough to get away with calling himself something else is not a particularly compelling reason to cease defeating Communism on its base principles. I'm aware that there are many branches to "Communist" ideology, but that doesn't make any of them any less ridiculous. They still subscribe to this pie-in-the-sky "Greater Good" bullshit, and that (rather than, say, a naked defense of Marxism/Leninism) is what makes them wrong. It's kind of like how there are different sects of Christianity, or how the Muslims and the Christians (and, for that matter, the Jews) all believe in and worship the same deity but deviate on only minor issues of faith: Communism and Religion (whether it's "traditional" Communism or your new, gentler, kinder, never-quite-defined version) are two different sides of the same coin.

Face it: you guys are never going to live down the legacy of Marx/Engels or Lenin. They tore your credibility apart faster than a draft card at Woodstock.


Well, only if you choose to disregard the fact that the Marxist definition of the state isn't yours.
You don't win arguments by redifining words. Marxism does not win political credbility by attempting to alter what we perceive of as a "State" (e.g. a governing body). If it's something else, use a different word.

There is no ruling class, and no organized repressive entity to enforce its rule.
And this is why I laugh every time one of you nutcases tries to get away with labelling him/herself as "progressive." Basically, these people want society to return to a subsistence level, in a system that would be kind of like Feudalism, but supposedly without the whips or mansions (even though every iteration of Communism that has ever been practiced has had both) or Lords or whatever.

That said, we're getting a bit offtopic. I probably shouldn't have even written this post, but I (obviously) can seldom resist putting the Left--be it New Left or Old Left--in its place. Those of us who may wish to continue the (tired) debate between Communism and Capitalism should probably do so elsewhere.

So voting for the person in the race who you want to win isn't democracy if she's related to someone who's had the job before? Interesting interpretation of the word democracy.
Since you seem to be unfamiliar with the term, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy) is what an Oligarchy is. Whether said Oligarchy is elected or not is immaterial to the fact that it is still an Oligarchy.

Interesting that you should bring that up though. I am toying with the idea of supporting a ban for same-family presedencies within, say, 25 years of each other. I do not want the course of my nation's future to be plotted by two different families with wildly different aims.

And this is why I laugh every time one of you nutcases tries to get away with labelling him/herself as "progressive." Basically, these people want society to return to a subsistence level, in a system that would be kind of like Feudalism, but supposedly without the whips or mansions (even though every iteration of Communism that has ever been practiced has had both) or Lords or whatever.

Um... Progressivism is something completely seperate, Melkor. Progressives are a breed of American Social Democrats connected to the Democratic party, or, in older terms, they were a movement of Capitalists in the 1900s commited to business reform. I don't think that Post-Marxist-Leninist Revolutionary Communists fit either bill (assuming that Soheran is a Rev. Com. I'm not sure).

I'll stop derailng now, though.

I am aware of and unimpressed with the differences between the "Old Left" and the "New Left."

Great. That's totally irrelevant, and suggests tellingly that you are actually rather ignorant of leftist political thought.

The New Left had its share of authoritarian Marxist-Leninists and the Old Left its share of anarchists and other non-Marxist and non-Leninist leftists.

Whether a specific communist philosopher deviates from Marx just enough to get away with calling himself something else

...is not what I'm talking about, and, again, that you say this is telling.

You're aware that there were communists before Marx? That there are communists who reject the "intermediate" stage of "Party control over everyday life"? That there are communists who reject political parties on principle, for that matter?

Most of us on NSG are anarchists... which means we differ very significantly from Marx on the precise point you chose to emphasize.

is not a particularly compelling reason to cease defeating Communism on its base principles.

No, but that wasn't what you did.

I'm aware that there are many branches to "Communist" ideology, but that doesn't make any of them any less ridiculous.

No, but it means that one way in which you think one branch is ridiculous can't be used to criticize all branches.

It's kind of like how there are different sects of Christianity, or how the Muslims and the Christians (and, for that matter, the Jews) all believe in and worship the same deity but deviate on only minor issues of faith:

Maybe.

But if you have a problem with the Calvinist notion of predestination, or the Christian notion of the trinity, or the Jewish notion of a "Chosen People", you can hardly extend that to every religion ever.

Face it: you guys are never going to live down the legacy of Marx/Engels or Lenin.

Is/ought.

You don't win arguments by redifining words.

Precisely my point.

If it's something else, use a different word.

I think "state" works perfectly well, especially if you understand what is meant by its "withering away."

That said, we're getting a bit offtopic.

So we are... though I've been hearing for years that Clinton's a closet Marxist-Leninist, so maybe not. ;)

Great. That's totally irrelevant, and suggests tellingly that you are actually rather ignorant of leftist political thought.
Pfft. How is it "irrelevant" when you were the one that challenged my knowledge of the Left to begin with? It's like saying "How about those Patriots?" and then telling me that their record/performance is "irrelevant" when we begin discussing it.

Get out of my face with that shit.

The New Left had its share of authoritarian Marxist-Leninists and the Old Left its share of anarchists and other non-Marxist and non-Leninist leftists.
Incorrect. The New Left dropped Authoritarian Marxism/Leninism like a bad habit after the USSR fell. Every pinko worth his weight in dogshit (although to be honest, I've not met many) knows that they can't possibly maintain political credibility and endorse Lenin and/or Marx at the same time.



...is not what I'm talking about, and, again, that you say this is telling.
Yes it is. Pay attention. You brought up that there were many different branches to Communism, and I have acknowledged this fact but do not care for a variety of reasons. Observe:

There are more theories than Marx's theories, and more interpretations of Marx's theories than Lenin's.

My point is that I don't care who your Political Prophet Of Choice is. The fact that there are tributaries of Communist thought doesn't make said tributaries any less ridiculous.

I brought up the comparison to religion because essentially, the concept of the "Greater Good" is the Left's equivalent of God. By declaring that the "Greater Good" is the moral equivalent of a steaming pile of dog shit, I kill about ten thousand birds with one stone by undercutting the Old/New Left's basic philosophical tenets. Whether a few of them reject the "intermediary phases" of Communism is entirely irrelevant to me. It's kind of like how by not believing in God, I can nip the whole religion issue in the bud and dismiss all sects of Christianity/Islam/Judaism as the ridiculous philosophies they are.

The "Greater Good" is bullshit, and civilization cannot exist without a governing body. That's the god damned definition of civilization--civilizations have rules and structure; that's what makes them civilizations.

The rest of your post reads like it was written by a cornered politician. I usually declare victory in a debate when my opponent resorts to leaving out the wide majority of my post (while ignoring the main points contained therein), responding to single sentences of mine, or even sentence fragments with single-word responses or simple sentences. That you have resorted to this tactic so early on in our discussion speaks volumes of the strength of your position. You spend a lot of time correcting me without elaborating on your ideas, your position, or why your version of Communism might actually work in some far off fantasy land where people are people but not people at the same time.

If you've been in NSG for more than a few months, it's hard to not know what I stand for and how angrily I proselytize it. My opposition is invariably so wishy-washy that they can never even be bothered to clarify their own positions. All you guys do is point your fingers whenever the opposition speaks and say "Nuh Uh!" but you never bother to explain why we're wrong, or (more importantly) what is right. These posts are usually nothing more than knee-jerk rhetoric without any real purpose or direction. Your latest has not been an exception.

EDIT: I don't know about Clinton being a closet Red, she seems a little too Hawkish and ambitious to me. :p

EDIT2: Um... Progressivism is something completely seperate, Melkor. Progressives are a breed of American Social Democrats connected to the Democratic party, or, in older terms, they were a movement of Capitalists in the 1900s commited to business reform. I don't think that Post-Marxist-Leninist Revolutionary Communists fit either bill (assuming that Soheran is a Rev. Com. I'm not sure).
I don't think they do either, but they still use the word and like to think of themselves as forward-thinking folks with good ideas for the future (who doesn't?). I wasn't attempting to attach them to either of these groups (especially not the latter!), but they do on occasion attempt to use the word "progressive" to define themselves, regardless of whether or not they actually support the Democrats or turn of the century business reform :p

I've been here on my Kyronea account for a year and a half Melkor and I have yet to figure out where you stand on various issues. I am, however, garnering from your constant talk about The Left that you would consider yourself right-winged?

I've been here on my Kyronea account for a year and a half Melkor and I have yet to figure out where you stand on various issues. I am, however, garnering from your constant talk about The Left that you would consider yourself right-winged?

"A few months" was a conservative figure, I haven't been posting here regularly for probably over a year.

But I don't like to self-apply the term "right wing" because the Right is usually scarcely better than the Left. Particularly in American politics this distinction is useless anyway, since even our most blatant, wildly "Left Wing " candidate would probably be seen as a conservative radical pretty much anywhere else on the planet. I'm a member of the economic right but I refuse to endorse Word One of their archaic social policies; I am not religious, and I don't support stupidly large subsidies (or, well, any subsidies) to corporations or individuals. I support (for the most part) right-wing economic policy and left-wing social policy.

"A few months" was probably a conservative figure, I haven't been posting here regularly for probably over a year.

But I don't like to self-apply the term "right wing" because the Right is usually scarcely better than the Left. Particularly in American politics this distinction is useless anyway, since even our most blatant, wildly "Left Wing " candidate would probably be seen as a conservative radical pretty much anywhere else on the planet. I'm a member of the economic right but I refuse to endorse Word One of their archaic social policies; I am not religious, and I don't support stupidly large subsidies (or, well, any subsidies) to corporations or individuals. I support (for the most part) right-wing economic policy and left-wing social policy.
Ah, okay. Thanks Melkor.

Pfft. How is it "irrelevant" when you were the one that challenged my knowledge of the Left to begin with? It's like saying "How about those Patriots?" and then telling me that their record/performance is "irrelevant" when we begin discussing it.

Get out of my face with that shit.

Anarcho-communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_communism)
Anarcho-syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism)
Council Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_Communism)

Before you make sweeping statements about the radical left, understand that there is no monolithic communist ideology to begin with, but rather a spectrum of different ideologies that differ on how we get to the idea of a stateless, classless society.

Incorrect. The New Left dropped Authoritarian Marxism/Leninism like a bad habit after the USSR fell. Every pinko worth his weight in dogshit (although to be honest, I've not met many) knows that they can't possibly maintain political credibility and endorse Lenin and/or Marx at the same time.

I beg to differ. Unfortunately, a large portion of the radical left still clings to Marxism-Leninism, however less open about they might be. Those who don't cling to Marxism have for the most part moved into anarchism, which I might add has never made claims about sacrificing for "the greater good" or building "proletarian dictatorships" and "people's states".

Yes it is. Pay attention. You brought up that there were many different branches to Communism, and I have acknowledged this fact but do not care for a variety of reasons. Observe:

Then you are willfully ignorant. You are ignoring the very large differences between Marxism-Leninism and communist-anarchism, and then making sweeping blanket statements about all communists in general.

My point is that I don't care who your Political Prophet Of Choice is. The fact that there are tributaries of Communist thought doesn't make said tributaries any less ridiculous.

Once again, you're assuming we're all like Marxists and have to have a political prophet of some kind. That's not the case. If you knew anything about communist-anarchism, you would know that it intrinsically eschews leader worship and personality cults.

I brought up the comparison to religion because essentially, the concept of the "Greater Good" is the Left's equivalent of God. By declaring that the "Greater Good" is the moral equivalent of a steaming pile of dog shit, I kill about ten thousand birds with one stone by undercutting the Old/New Left's basic philosophical tenets. Whether a few of them reject the "intermediary phases" of Communism is entirely irrelevant to me. It's kind of like how by not believing in God, I can nip the whole religion issue in the bud and dismiss all sects of Christianity/Islam/Judaism as the ridiculous philosophies they are.

Like I said before, we don't all make paeans to the greater good. Rational self-interest is as much a corner stone of communist-anarchist philosophy as solidarity and individual liberty are. Even mroe, you just admitted to dismissing a philosophy that you also admit that you do not take the time to understand.

The "Greater Good" is bullshit, and civilization cannot exist without a governing body. That's the god damned definition of civilization--civilizations have rules and structure; that's what makes them civilizations.

This where we ask you "Why is civilization predicated on the existence of an iron fisted 'governing body' to make the rules which will inevitably serve the interests of the rulers to the detriment of the ruled?"

"Why does the existence of order and structure require the existence of masters?"

"Who will watch the watchers?"

As anarchists, Soheran and I argue that authoritarian power structures are illegitimate because they cannot answer these questions. As the Spanish Revolution that I brought up earlier and you ignored proved, order is possible without rulers, and indeed any real freedom is predicated on the abolition of the state and classes.

Pfft. How is it "irrelevant" when you were the one that challenged my knowledge of the Left to begin with?

Um... maybe because the New/Old Left distinction has nothing to do with the discussion?

:rolleyes:

Incorrect. The New Left dropped Authoritarian Marxism/Leninism like a bad habit after the USSR fell.

"After the USSR fell" is more than two decades after the ideological flowering of the New Left.

Most leftist movements, Old Left and New Left, moved away from aligning themselves with the Soviet Union after it collapsed, but plenty are still officially Marxist-Leninist and plenty still have authoritarian elements.

And, like I said, there were non-Marxist and non-Leninist communists before there was a "New Left." Your distinction is irrelevant.

Yes it is. Pay attention. You brought up that there were many different branches to Communism, and I have acknowledged this fact but do not care for a variety of reasons.

Yeah, obviously.

But your phrasing suggested that all of us operate in the Marxist framework, that the differences are minor and just barely sufficient to allow us to avoid the "Marxist" label... but this is simply not the case.

My point is that I don't care who your Political Prophet Of Choice is. The fact that there are tributaries of Communist thought doesn't make said tributaries any less ridiculous.

Great!

Next time, when you want to make a point about all communists, why don't you actually provide an objection that applies to all of us, then... instead of assuming that your criticism of your misinterpretation of Marxist theory regarding the state somehow is effective against all of us.

I brought up the comparison to religion because essentially, the concept of the "Greater Good" is the Left's equivalent of God. By declaring that the "Greater Good" is the moral equivalent of a steaming pile of dog shit, I kill about ten thousand birds with one stone by undercutting the Old/New Left's basic philosophical tenets.

Let us all tremble before the might of Melkor Unchained, whose very declaration dictates truth!

Kneel and abase yourselves, all ye people of the world, lest he turn his omnipotent rhetoric against you....

Whether a few of them reject the "intermediary phases" of Communism is entirely irrelevant to me.

It should be highly relevant, if you want to make an argument that Communism is stupid because of its notion of an intermediate stage... which is exactly what you did.

The fact that you have other reasons doesn't somehow make that argument any more legitimate.

The "Greater Good" is bullshit

Objectivism is bullshit. Therefore, the philosophical foundation of your political theory is wrong.

See? Two can play this game. Where have we gone? Nowhere.

The rest of your post reads like it was written by a cornered politician.

Or a person who's trying to keep to the original focus of his point, because he'd rather not spend too much time and effort on a broad argument about Communism in a thread about Hillary Clinton.

If you've been in NSG for more than a few months, it's hard to not know what I stand for and how angrily I proselytize it.

Yes, and the telling fact about you is that you are only ever rational when you are not angry.

It would be helpful to all of us, and probably to you too, if you learned to sublimate your anger into intelligent argumentation instead of spouted rhetoric... it is a handy trick.

My opposition is invariably so wishy-washy that they can never even be bothered to clarify their own positions.

"Invariably"? Really?

All you guys do is point your fingers whenever the opposition speaks and say "Nuh Uh!"

Well, when you attack us, of course we are going to be on the defensive.

You're surely aware that your style is rather aggressive, so if we respond by challenging your oft-repeated and strongly-expressed objections, you can hardly complain.

but you never bother to explain why we're wrong,

To the contrary, we do all the time... I am doing so right now.

or (more importantly) what is right.

Well, on some level that's because "what is right" in the case of, say, socialism is generally pretty obvious--equality, pursuit of the public good over private profit, etc. When people challenge these ideals--as most people do not, because most people accept them--we can and do respond.

It's the alleged costs--inefficiency, loss of individual freedom, and so on--that generally make people disinclined towards left-wing policies, so it makes perfect sense that our focus is more on responding to the objections.

Before you make sweeping statements about the radical left, understand that there is no monolithic communist ideology to begin with, but rather a spectrum of different ideologies that differ on how we get to the idea of a stateless, classless society.
And every single one is shite.
This where we ask you "Why is civilization predicated on the existence of an iron fisted 'governing body' to make the rules which will inevitably serve the interests of the rulers to the detriment of the ruled?"

"Why does the existence of order and structure require the existence of masters?"

"Who will watch the watchers?"

As anarchists, Soheran and I argue that authoritarian power structures are illegitimate because they cannot answer these questions. As the Spanish Revolution that I brought up earlier and you ignored proved, order is possible without rulers, and indeed any real freedom is predicated on the abolition of the state and classes.
The answer is "Because it works, that's just true."

If you want a shortened version of why - it's because the people at the top work hard to keep their position, and the people underneath them work hard to raise their own status.

And as the Spanish Revolution showed, you get the crap beaten out of you if you don't have strong leadership, because a strong leadership leads to a much more unified, powerful force.

The only reason that the Republicans didn't get completely mauled within about 10 minutes is because the Marxist-Leninists had a decent power structure that gave a small group of people wide-ranging military command.

Rational self-interest is as much a corner stone of communist-anarchist philosophy as solidarity and individual liberty are.

"Rational self-interest" added to solidarity is no longer "rational self-interest" at all, unless solidarity is just the instrumental support of others for selfish reasons.

A convincing case could be made that the same is true of combining it with individual liberty... at least respect for individual liberty beyond one's own.

If you want a shortened version of why - it's because the people at the top work hard to keep their position, and the people underneath them work hard to raise their own status.

So class society is chaos and disorder characterized by fierce competition between the different classes?

Why, now you're thinking like an anarchist....

And as the Spanish Revolution showed, you get the crap beaten out of you if you don't have strong leadership, because a strong leadership leads to a much more unified, powerful force.

I rather think the trouble the Anarchists had was more plausibly connected to the fact that both their enemies and their alleged "allies" put substantial efforts into destroying them. :rolleyes:

So class society is chaos and disorder characterized by fierce competition between the different classes?

Why, now you're thinking like an anarchist....
Not really...

It's not chaos and disorder, because it's easily manipulated into something much more benign, and has been all through history, and will be for the rest of eternity.
I rather think the trouble the Anarchists had was more plausibly connected to the fact that both their enemies and their alleged "allies" put substantial efforts into destroying them. :rolleyes:
...

Yes, that's how a war works, and they utterly failed at it...

It's not chaos and disorder, because it's easily manipulated into something much more benign, and has been all through history, and will be for the rest of eternity.

Maybe. But it's strange that you offer that up as a reason that class society is good.

Yes, that's how a war works, and they utterly failed at it...

For reasons that had nothing to do with their structure of political authority.

Maybe. But it's strange that you offer that up as a reason that class society is good.
Not really.

"Because it makes life much less complicated for everyone" is about as good as it gets in terms of reasons for doing anything.
For reasons that had nothing to do with their structure of political authority.
On the contrary - the Fascists succeeded largely because of the fact that they were pretty united. The Republicans failed because they were made of too many factions, all of them in a constant imbroglio essentially because of their different structures of political authority, as much as anything else.

"Because it makes life much less complicated for everyone" is about as good as it gets

You'll have to explain that one....

all of them in a constant imbroglio essentially because of their different structures of political authority

That fact hardly seems to be causal... "different structures of political authority" cooperate all the time.

Now, if one of those "structures" wants to destroy the other....

You'll have to explain that one....
Yeah, fine, ok.

In a classed society, people always know their place and either try to keep or change it, depending on where they are.

A classless society can't exist, basically. If you become rich in a 'classless' society, you have a means of control over others, and hence are of a class above them. So there you go.
That fact hardly seems to be causal... "different structures of political authority" cooperate all the time.
Not in a war they don't.

You need one unifying set of beliefs, one type of equipment and one set of ranks for a military organisation to work properly.

The Republicans started as, worked as, and were defeated as a 'group' with no single ideology, no single set of equipment and different organisations with different hierachies, most of which didn't want to work with others, due to ideological differences.

Ironically, they collapsed for the same reason as the White Armies of Russia did in the civil war there.
Now, if one of those "structures" wants to destroy the other....
Then they have to be stronger than the other, which is what happened when the Stalinists started receiving T-26 tanks and BT-5s, as well as B-6 armoured cars - they were the group with the most firepower and also the most unification, which is why they very, very quickly started to dominate the Republicans wherever they were at that current time.

The reason that the Stalinists didn't win is because the USSR was a hell of a lot further from the Republican areas than Italy and Germany are from Spain, and the fact that the Fascist leadership co-erced Italy and Germany into the war on their side showed that a leadership with one singular objective, with which it can appeal to similar groups, will win given time.

In a classed society, people always know their place

This is only beneficial to the powerful, isn't it?

and either try to keep or change it, depending on where they are.

Yeah, which, like I said, is a recipe for conflict.

A classless society can't exist, basically. If you become rich in a 'classless' society

Then it isn't a classless society, is it?

Not in a war they don't.

So nations never cooperate in alliances?

You need one unifying set of beliefs

US and Soviet Union?

This is only beneficial to the powerful, isn't it?
Not really, since nobody has to fanny about trying to keep things classless.
Yeah, which, like I said, is a recipe for conflict.
Aye, and as I said, this 'recipe for conflict' is extremely easy to manipulate into something much more tepid, and much more benign.
Then it isn't a classless society, is it?
Yes, precisely the problem.
So nations never cooperate in alliances?
Very rarely do nations in a war on the same side fight in such an intermingled fashion like the Republicans did, and usually when it does occur, for example in North Africa with the mixed Italian/German formations, there's so much infighting between COs that nothing gets done, and the problems with different kinds of kit are hugely problematic.

Nowadays, with NATO having regulation standards of ammunition and weapons, this is not such a massive problem as it was in World War 2, but it's very rare still to get mixed formations fighting effectively in the same area.
US and Soviet Union?
Never fought in the same theatre of conflict, which was pretty bloody fortunate, as Patton was kind of overconfident idiot who'd have attacked the Russians and got the whole of Western Europe taken over.

Yeah, they met up. After the war had been won, and even then things were pretty tense indeed. See what happened in the next five years, with the Berlin Blockade, followed extremely swiftly by the Korean War. It was a marriage of convenience, much like the "alliances" formed in the Spanish Civil War.

Not really

To the contrary, your description indicates precisely that.

The rulers want to maintain their status, so the fact that everyone "knows their place" is beneficial to them.

Everyone else "knows their place", but they are hardly content with it, because as you said they are always seeking to elevate themselves.

Aye, and as I said, this 'recipe for conflict' is extremely easy to manipulate into something much more tepid, and much more benign.

Really?

While violent class conflict is mostly absent in developed countries, long-term poverty nevertheless has rather obvious social consequences in areas like crime....

Yes, precisely the problem.

So your argument rests on the notion that somehow the concentration of wealth is unavoidable?

How so?

Very rarely do nations in a war on the same side fight in such an intermingled fashion like the Republicans did, and usually when it does occur, for example in North Africa with the mixed Italian/German formations, there's so much infighting between COs that nothing gets done, and the problems with different kinds of kit are hugely problematic.

Even if that's the case, the problems the Republicans had weren't that of the anarchists specifically, and don't really have anything to do with anarchist ideology.

It was a marriage of convenience

Indeed, but it worked.

much like the "alliances" formed in the Spanish Civil War.

Only those broke before the war was over.

To the contrary, your description indicates precisely that.

The rulers want to maintain their status, so the fact that everyone "knows their place" is beneficial to them.

Everyone else "knows their place", but they are hardly content with it, because as you said they are always seeking to elevate themselves.
Yes... but as I said and you flagrantly ignored, there's no way for that not to happen. A classless society is classic idiot-left bullshit, and has all the hallmarks of a bunch of jokers generally arsing around trying to conjure up a utopia for themselves which will never occur.
Really?

While violent class conflict is mostly absent in developed countries, long-term poverty nevertheless has rather obvious social consequences in areas like crime....
Right.

On the other hand, the whole reason for the various economies of the world working is based on 'class conflict'.

Why do people work hard? To earn more money, to get promoted, with which they can earn respect among the higher-still-ups if they work hard, to get more money and promotions, etc. etc.
So your argument rests on the notion that somehow the concentration of wealth is unavoidable?

How so?
Because human history shows it to be so, and wherever people take steps to avoid it from taking place, those same people still become miraculously richer, see the USSR, China and Cuba et al?
Even if that's the case, the problems the Republicans had weren't that of the anarchists specifically, and don't really have anything to do with anarchist ideology.
They were pretty bloody focussed on the anarchists.

The Stalinists simply subjugated those that they wanted and destroyed all that they didn't. Because of their common heirachy, and the fact that they were well-supplied due to one friendly power, they were the best forces in the war, man for man.

The Anarchists basically sat around getting their arses roundly kicked, trying in vain to run their little areas in whatever particularly stupid way they felt like. In some small areas, they got the odd communal farm producing 10% more grain a year or whatever - which is exactly the kind of thing which is utterly meaningless in a larger war effort in which none of your settlements has any kind of unified front against essentially a common enemy, and many of the regions had three or four different types of rifles between platoons, when such formations did manage to appear. Complete bloody shambles.
Indeed, but it worked.
Not for the Republicans it didn't, and as I stated, it only worked between the US and USSR because of the fact that they never had to work together in an operation in the history of the war.
Only those broke before the war was over.
Yes... I know... it only really worked because the USSR and the US never had to actually fight together, though.

Yes... but as I said and you flagrantly ignored, there's no way for that not to happen.

I'm waiting for an actual argument.

On the other hand, the whole reason for the various economies of the world working is based on 'class conflict'.

Why do people work hard? To earn more money, to get promoted, with which they can earn respect among the higher-still-ups if they work hard, to get more money and promotions, etc. etc.

Your notion of human motivation is highly limited, and your assumption that a classless society renders impossible material economic incentives is simply false.

Because human history shows it to be so, and wherever people take steps to avoid it from taking place, those same people still become miraculously richer, see the USSR, China and Cuba et al?

What's your point, exactly? It isn't like most leftists, "classic" or otherwise, look to any of those powers for inspiration anymore... except maybe Cuba.

Are you trying to argue that attempts at economic equality necessarily result in dictatorship? Then you'll have to do better than that... the methods and approach of authoritarian Marxism-Leninism are not universal.

What is it about relative economic equality that makes extreme political inequality necessary to achieve it? Certainly on its face such a connection is counter-intuitive.

The Stalinists simply subjugated those that they wanted and destroyed all that they didn't.

Yeah... and considering that this involved attacking their allies, that rather suggests that the problem was more on their part.

The Anarchists basically sat around getting their arses roundly kicked, trying in vain to run their little areas in whatever particularly stupid way they felt like.

Yes, yes, I get that you don't like anarchists.

But this barely even means anything substantive.

I'm waiting for an actual argument.
The same goes for you, basically. Seeing as you obviously have no military acumen whatsoever, it seems slightly strange that you'd try to argue over that.
Your notion of human motivation is highly limited, and your assumption that a classless society renders impossible material economic incentives is simply false.
You can't have a classless society with anything other than physical, mental and material equality between everyone. Or there will always be classes.
What's your point, exactly? It isn't like most leftists, "classic" or otherwise, look to any of those powers for inspiration anymore... except maybe Cuba.
Yes, Cuba's ok. Good healthcare. Shame about doctors becoming waiters in bars and restaurants because they're smart enough to know they'll earn more through tips, mind.

Don't like Hugo Chavez much, mind. Used to, but not any more. Bit of a wanker. But that's another debate.
Are you trying to argue that attempts at economic equality necessarily result in dictatorship? Then you'll have to do better than that... the methods and approach of authoritarian Marxism-Leninism are not universal.
It's 100% bullshit, however they attain it. It doesn't happen, and it won't.
What is it about relative economic equality that makes extreme political inequality necessary to achieve it? Certainly on its face such a connection is counter-intuitive.
Your problem is that you look on the face of things too much, squire ;)
Yeah... and considering that this involved attacking their allies, that rather suggests that the problem was more on their part.
Not really, seeing as the anarchists had the numbers to have been a useful force, it's just that they were always bickering, which is why led them to getting stomped on by a) The Nationalists and b) The Stalinists. Had they got their shit together, so to speak, they'd have been much more respected all 'round.
Yes, yes, I get that you don't like anarchists.
I wouldn't mind them, so long as they were to somehow manage to conjure up a working, productive state, with decent military capabilities in times of war.

But they don't, so I don't yet, no.
But this barely even means anything substantive.
Picking apart your argument piece by piece is far more bloody substantive than anything anarcho-anything has to say for itself, though, eh?



It's 2 in the morning here, so if you're up for posting a reply, don't hold your breath for the counter ;)

In a communist society, you do not own your body, the state does.On the contrary, no one "owns" a body. I am my body (along with the non-physical aspects of myself). Likewise you are your body.

I'm still not convinced that being so alienated from your own body as to regard it as a "thing" that you "own" isn't more a cause of the capitalist ideology than a symptom of the system. Probably both, I suppose.

You can't have a classless society with anything other than physical, mental and material equality between everyone. Or there will always be classes.

Difference is not inequality, and not all inequality is class inequality.

Comparatively minor differences in remuneration do not a class system make.

Yes, Cuba's ok. Good healthcare. Shame about doctors becoming waiters in bars and restaurants because they're smart enough to know they'll earn more through tips, mind.

I wasn't defending Cuba.

It's 100% bullshit, however they attain it. It doesn't happen, and it won't.

Again with the whole "waiting for an argument" thing....

Your problem is that you look on the face of things too much, squire ;)

That is not an answer to the question.

Obviously the face of things is not always accurate. But generally if you want to deny that the face of things is accurate, you have to make an actual argument... not just an assertion.

Not really, seeing as the anarchists had the numbers to have been a useful force, it's just that they were always bickering, which is why led them to getting stomped on by a) The Nationalists and b) The Stalinists.

And now we go back to the beginning. :rolleyes:

Picking apart your argument piece by piece

You have done nothing of the sort. To the contrary, this has mostly been a wild goose chase on my part... you have failed to justify anything you said initially to Trotskylvania. Especially as regards the impossibility of a classless society.

Well, as a general rule, the older they are the more set they are in their beliefs--I'm not surprised. When I was growing up, my stepfather (who was an older man) never bothered to research candidates at all--he would vote for whoever had a D next to his/her name and be done with it.While I happen to enjoy reading and thinking about the significant issues and actors in contemporary politics, it's an open question in scientific circles whether party-line voting may not be the most rational way to go.

Recent research suggests, for instance, that people voting a consistent straight ticket tend to do a better job at selecting candidates representing their own interests than do people who do extensive research in order to make their vote choice. Experimental data appear to support the theory that, paradoxically, "well-informed" voters suffer from information-overload and are more susceptible to media frames that may submerge the voter's preferences under priorities that are not their own.

Ironic? Yes, and I have to admit that I resisted the conclusion rather urgently for some time... but, the evidence is really piling up now, and I am in the final accounting an empiricist before anything else.

That said, Hillary won't win the nominationAll evidence to the contrary...

and if she does, the GOP will absolutely love it. Even though I have disdain--contempt, even, for the entire GOP field of candidates (except Ron Paul! Woo!), any of them will walk all over Hillary in a presidential election.No, the Republicans are terrified of Clinton. Especially since recent polls on hypothetical races have her winning against any of the Republican front-runners.

Communism is meant to result in a "Stateless, Classless Society" (which doesn't and can't exist, by the way)They can and do, though it is a trickier problem to assess whether a stateless, classless society can be made compatible with anything resembling a post-industrial economy.

I brought up the comparison to religion because essentially, the concept of the "Greater Good" is the Left's equivalent of God.Really?

See, I've always thought that was more nearly true of capitalist ideologues than anyone on the Left.

Why do people have to suffer poverty and starvation under capitalism? "Well, you see, it's all for the Greater Good." (Alternatively, "God is testing us, but he'll make up for it in the next life.)

Why do people have to work degrading jobs, turning to drugs and mindless consumption to avoid their own misery? "Well, you see, it's all for the Greater Good." (Alternatively, "God is testing us, but he'll make up for it in the next life.")

I could continue. My point is that communists and anarchists have, from the beginning, categorically denied the supposed power of "Greater Good" explanations right along with "God's will." Communists and anarchists refuse to sacrifice the happiness and well-being of some people in the name of supposed social goods the benefits of which they do not see. Rather communists and anarchists insist that society must be held accountable to the individual: it must deliver on the goods that it promises, not to some but to all.

The "Greater Good" is bullshit,Agreed.

and civilization cannot exist without a governing body. That's the god damned definition of civilizationTechnically, the definition of civilization is a human society characterized by the development of agriculture and settlement in cities. While you might argue that such societies necessarily require a ruling class, certainly this is not merely implicit in the definition.

--civilizations have rules and structure.Agreed. But having rules and structure does not necessarily entail having a ruling class.

I meet in a philosophy reading group every week. We have rules, to be sure, concerning who will present each week, where we will meet, what we will eat, and how we will conduct ourselves during our meetings. But I think you would be hard pressed to identify a "ruling class" in our group.

If you want a shortened version of why - it's because the people at the top work hard to keep their position, and the people underneath them work hard to raise their own status.Do people at the top "work hard"? While there are obvious exceptions, I think on most empirical measures you would find that the lowliest people tend to work harder and longer than a majority at the top.

How many vacation days has Bush taken, again?

Meanwhile, you must believe that the people "underneath" are stupid, or irrational, or both. You say they work hard to raise their own status... but do you really think they haven't noticed that this virtually never happens? (If you do, you would be mistaken.)

A classless society can't exist, basically. If you become rich in a 'classless' society, you have a means of control over others, and hence are of a class above them. So there you go.How can you get "rich" (relative to others) without the means to accumulate wealth?

Marx dreamed of a society without any kind of money, and in that case the argument here is rather obvious. But let's deal with a less fanciful idea, and imagine instead a socialist society that retains some form of money.

People tend to forget that money has two basic characteristics: fungibility and durability.

The property of fungibility is what allows money to function as a medium of exchange.

The property of durability is what allows money to be accumulated as wealth.

The two properties are not necessarily related: a socialist society could adopt a system of fungible credits to serve as a medium of exchange, with the proviso that each credit expires some time after receipt--after one year, perhaps. There is no theoretical reason to suppose that markets would not flourish in such a system, but wealth like that we know under capitalism could not exist: the size of a bank account would be limited (give or take) to the size of a year's salary.

(Note that this does not require absolute equality, but rather relative equality. There are, if one considers market dynamics in such a system, good reasons to believe that on the whole this would exert upper bounds on the size of salaries themselves--effectively eliminating the super-salaries of the CEO without actually bothering to prohibit them.)

This is just one hypothetical. The point is that a "classless" society is not classless by virtue of its state at any particular historical moment. Rather it is structurally classless in the sense that it does not provide for the development of class interests.

Anarcho-communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_communism)
Anarcho-syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism)
Council Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_Communism)

Before you make sweeping statements about the radical left, understand that there is no monolithic communist ideology to begin with, but rather a spectrum of different ideologies that differ on how we get to the idea of a stateless, classless society.

I've had four or five double-shot gin and tonics within the last four hours, but even as drunk as I am right now I can see how ridiculous this is. Pay close attention to the emphasis I'm about so put in here, as the emphasized portions seem to contradict each other.

Before you make sweeping statements about the radical left, understand that there is no monolithic communist ideology to begin with, but rather a spectrum of different ideologies that differ on how we get to the idea of a stateless, classless society.

I'm going to spell this out for you again: A statless, classless society cannot work for humans with humans. The fact that a number of different ideologies happen to have varied ideas about how we get there is immaterial to my attacks on the idea of a stateless, classles society. As long as there is civilization and infrastructure on this planet, there will be States and Classes.

I beg to differ. Unfortunately, a large portion of the radical left still clings to Marxism-Leninism, however less open about they might be. Those who don't cling to Marxism have for the most part moved into anarchism, which I might add has never made claims about sacrificing for "the greater good" or building "proletarian dictatorships" and "people's states".
Clinging to Marxism/Leninism would make them Old Left. They don't become New Left just because they may happen to have been born recently.

Then you are willfully ignorant. You are ignoring the very large differences between Marxism-Leninism and communist-anarchism, and then making sweeping blanket statements about all communists in general.
Everyone makes blanket statements about philosophies if they don't agree that its basic principles are possible or moral. Not believing in God doesn't make me "ignorant" of Islam or Judaism or Catholicism; likewise, not believing in the "classless, stateless society" doesn't make me ignorant about the idea or its roots.

I don't think that you understand that I'm saying that Communism and all its deviant ideologies are bullshit for the same reasons. That they have the same end but only vary on how they get there is what makes such a blanket generalization possible. The ends of these philosophies (to keep you with me here, I'm talking about the attainment of a "stateless, classsless society) are impossible; the means by which it is attempted are almost always immoral.

Once again, you're assuming we're all like Marxists and have to have a political prophet of some kind. That's not the case. If you knew anything about communist-anarchism, you would know that it intrinsically eschews leader worship and personality cults.
I'm sure it does (or tires to). But if that's the case, who's going to get off their ass and make this Paradise happen? Eminent personalities are a part of life and you're never going to do away with them. Some people will always stand out in any society, be it for their physical properties, their personality, or whatever else. If you're going to be the least bit permissive with human behavior, circles will develop around certain people or groups. At what point do you disallow admiration for other individuals? At what point does anachro-communist theory step in and say "WOAH! You like that guy a little too much! ?"

And what do you do about it?

Like I said before, we don't all make paeans to the greater good. Rational self-interest is as much a corner stone of communist-anarchist philosophy as solidarity and individual liberty are. Even mroe, you just admitted to dismissing a philosophy that you also admit that you do not take the time to understand.
I didn't say I didn't understand them, I said I dismissed them on the base principles that these ideologies share. I may not be as familiar with them as you are (but I can hardly be faulted for that), but again; it's the same principle by which I dismiss Monotheism by not believing in God. Since I don't believe that the idea of a "Classless, Stateless society" is moral or even possible, I don't agree with any of the Communists that might have different ideas about how to get there. Honestly, this is like the tenth time I've had to explain this.

This where we ask you "Why is civilization predicated on the existence of an iron fisted 'governing body' to make the rules which will inevitably serve the interests of the rulers to the detriment of the ruled?"
It shouldn't be "Iron Fisted" but regrettably any such institution would by its very nature be repressive. Civilization is the concept of large groups of people living together in harmony. Since not all of us are rational all the time (we get drunk, we do stupid things occasionally, and--let's face it--some people like to mug and/or beat others) the idea of boundaries and rules is included within the notion of civilization. If we lived in a perfect world where no one ever tried to screw anyone else or steal/rape/murder them, I'd agree with you. Rules and their enforcement is a basic requirement to harmonious human existence. Without them, we'd be free to do whatever we wanted, and the results would soon speak for themselves.

I don't think a governing body should be "detrimental" to the "ruled." It usually is, but that's only because it invariably tries to do impossible things. If the government only existed to enforce contracts and protect its citizens, I fail to see a "detriment" as long as the citizens are equal in the eyes of the law. Not everyone will succeed of course, but that will be the case in any environment.

"Why does the existence of order and structure require the existence of masters?"
Because every group has a leader, and if they don't, they have several smaller groups conspiring to be or decide the leader. Lock yourself in a room with ten other anachro-communists for six months and see what happens.

"Who will watch the watchers?"
An armed populace with a strong Constitution.

As anarchists, Soheran and I argue that authoritarian power structures are illegitimate because they cannot answer these questions.
I just did, and they will continue to exist regardless of your efforts.

As the Spanish Revolution that I brought up earlier and you ignored proved, order is possible without rulers, and indeed any real freedom is predicated on the abolition of the state and classes.

I'm not sure what exactly your point is regarding the Spanish Revolution. I've seen you mention it, but you're pretty much just saying "Spanish Revolution" like it's some self-contained point that I'm supposed to instantly understand. Does the course of the Spanish Revolution (which one? 1868 or 1936? Both seem somewhat pertinent here) prove your point or something?

EDIT: Soheran, when you get your wits about you, feel free to jump back in with some real arguments. I'm not answering anymore of this one-sentence, cornered rat bullshit. Every one of your responses to my previous post ignores my basic thesis entirely (which I have explained again above) which is that a Classless, Stateless Society cannot and will not exist because it is contrary to human behavior and preferences. A philosophy for humans should work with humans for humans. "CSS" as I'll now call the concept (since you're assuming all attacks on Communism are attacks on Marxist/Leninism) does neither.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f222/ganjmahal/hilarity.jpg

I'm going to spell this out for you again: A statless, classless society cannot work for humans with humans.

That must be why it's worked in many different parts of the world, and still works in some today. (Why is it so many Westerners are so ignorant of non-Western societies?)

Yes, I'm thinking of small-scale, mainly non-industrialised societies (in parts of Melanesia or Tokelau, for instance). But to claim that "a stateless, classless society cannot work for humans with humans" is obviously incorrect.

An armed populace

How very American of you. Strangely, the rest of us seem to manage just fine without being armed. Or are you saying that the United States is somehow more prone to authoritarian governments than other Western countries?

People who cling to their guns in the US in the ridiculous belief that they may use them one day to fight against government tyranny make me laugh. Seriously. You're not going to have a government that tries to oppress you by force of arms, and everyone (except the most delusional) realises that. If your government wants to control you, it's smart enough to be a lot more subtle than brute force. Propaganda, blatant lying and scaremongering have proved their worth as effective tools for the US government to keep a large enough chunk of its population under control. A lot more effective than force of arms.

But as long as people continue to believe that the only threat is their government turning against them with armed force, the government will be happy to encourage that delusion.

Difference is not inequality, and not all inequality is class inequality.
Difference absolutely is inequality. And where you get inequality, you get classes of people, based on whatever means, which does indeed create 'class inequality' as you put it.
Comparatively minor differences in remuneration do not a class system make.
Erm, yes they do. If you earn even slightly more money than anyone else, or own slightly more things than anyone else, you are of a higher class than them, especially in a society where most people are on equal pay.

Which is why a classless society is an impossibility, as there's little motivation to do anything - I'm quite a good person, so I'd probably work quite hard, until I realised that nobody else was pulling their share, at which point I'd just get pissed off and not bother any more.

In a classed society, I work hard, and the people that don't suffer for it. Which is why it works better.
I wasn't defending Cuba.
When did I say that you were?

I was just giving some comments of my own on the matter.
Again with the whole "waiting for an argument" thing....
... yes, and again I have nothing to counter-argue, because you sit around avoiding a debate that you're bound to lose, because history speaks on my side, and all you have is a bunch of idealistic bullshit ingrained into your mind.
That is not an answer to the question.
No, it's just not the answer that you want to hear.
Obviously the face of things is not always accurate. But generally if you want to deny that the face of things is accurate, you have to make an actual argument... not just an assertion.
OK, fine.

If you want a classless society, you need extreme repression, or it won't occur, because people will simply do unofficial deals - see in the Russian civil war, when the Bolsheviki hadn't quite got the repression thing sorted yet, and about 75-85% (surprising as this may sound, records on the matter are difficult to obtain, and are written to save the arses of local leaders where they do exist) of internal trade was "cigarette lighterism", on the black market, swapping grain for illegally manufactured consumer goods.
And now we go back to the beginning. :rolleyes:
Yes, quite.

Once again, you're getting plastered in a debate that you lack the military or political acumen to win.
You have done nothing of the sort. To the contrary, this has mostly been a wild goose chase on my part... you have failed to justify anything you said initially to Trotskylvania. Especially as regards the impossibility of a classless society.
...

Here, allow me to spell out my argument, in extremely simple terms, because that's seemingly what you need :

You are wrong.

That's about all there is to it. The fact that you keep ignoring my points, in a similar style to that master of debate, Andaris Prime, shows that you have no argument.

Myself : blah blah argument blah blah
You : That's not an argument
Myself : Yes it is
You : NO WAY IS THAT AN ARGUMENT

Clinging to Marxism/Leninism would make them Old Left.

Weather Underground: Old Left or New Left?
Black Panther Party: Old Left or New Left?
Progressive Labor Party: Old Left or New Left?

Your definitions are highly limited.

EDIT: Soheran, when you get your wits about you, feel free to jump back in with some real arguments.

I will, the moment I have real arguments to respond to.

I'm not answering anymore of this one-sentence, cornered rat bullshit.

I am lots of things, but I am never (well, rarely) a cornered rat.

I give one-sentence replies to people who deserve them. (Though reading it over now, most of my responses to you are not, in fact, technically one sentence.)

Every one of your responses to my previous post ignores my basic thesis entirely (which I have explained again above) which is that a Classless, Stateless Society cannot and will not exist because it is contrary to human behavior and preferences.

Interesting thesis.

I'm not sure how I was supposed to respond to it when it appeared nowhere in your earlier post... but I'm sure that's just because I'm a cornered rat. ;)

I'm also not sure how I am supposed to respond to a thesis lacking an argument (how is a CSS "contrary to human behavior and preferences"?)... the only thing in its support you've said yet is that civilization needs rules and structure, neither of which are precluded by the abolition of a class of rulers.

Edit: Going over your reply to Trotskylvania, I see I have been slightly unfair... you made an attempt to rectify the gap between "rules and structure" and a "class of rulers" by arguing that all groups have, or eventually will get, leaders.

Unfortunately, your argument simply carries your unargued-for assumption a step further: you assume that in a group without rulers, that is a position of political power that is simply empty, that people are conspiring to get. Anarchism, however, argues that there should be no such political position: political equality is not just a matter of happenstance, but of structure.

In a society without "politicians" as we today know them (who require institutions, structural hierarchy--they don't arise automatically), might there be "leaders"? Perhaps--human beings are what they are, and certain individuals will gain the admiration and respect of others. But those "leaders" will not have genuine power to enforce their policies: they must still convince others to go along with them, because their vote counts no more than anyone else's.

A philosophy for humans should work with humans for humans.

That's almost tautological. It gets you nowhere.

(since you're assuming all attacks on Communism are attacks on Marxist/Leninism)

I have done nothing of the sort.

My original point was, if you recall, that I found it amusing that one specific argument of yours was directed at a doctrine of Marxism-Leninism when you were replying to Trotskylvania's explicit statement that not all communists abided by that ideology.

I have never said anything amounting to, or even approximating, the idea that "all attacks on Communism are attacks on Marxism-Leninism."

I think if you actually supported your attack on the notion of the "Greater Good", and better explained how it was relevant to communism, that might work... as might a good argument for your thesis above.

Your misunderstanding of the "stateless" concept and your skepticism regarding the "intermediate stage" are, unfortunately, insufficient--the former because you don't understand the concept, the latter because it only applies to a group of communists who are decidedly unrepresented on NSG, and certainly don't encompass Trotskylvania and I.

How can you get "rich" (relative to others) without the means to accumulate wealth?
More to the point - if you cannot accumulate wealth, what's the point of working hard to get rich?
Marx dreamed of a society without any kind of money, and in that case the argument here is rather obvious. But let's deal with a less fanciful idea, and imagine instead a socialist society that retains some form of money.
That shows the inherent problem with Marx - too much of a dreamer. Not enough of a pragmatist.
People tend to forget that money has two basic characteristics: fungibility and durability.

The property of fungibility is what allows money to function as a medium of exchange.

The property of durability is what allows money to be accumulated as wealth.

The two properties are not necessarily related: a socialist society could adopt a system of fungible credits to serve as a medium of exchange, with the proviso that each credit expires some time after receipt--after one year, perhaps. There is no theoretical reason to suppose that markets would not flourish in such a system, but wealth like that we know under capitalism could not exist: the size of a bank account would be limited (give or take) to the size of a year's salary.
There is a theoretical reason to suppose that markets would not flourish, though.

The reason most people in their thirties work hard is to a) provide for their families and b) save up for a sports car or whatever for their mid-life crisis, when that inevitably comes.

If you take away that means of saving up, then people will work for their own subsistence and a few luxuries, but little more.

Unless you want to have a whole economy based almost completely on short and long-term credit agreements, this system will not work. And if you do want an economu based on such means, then you only have to look around at what's happening in the US at the moment to understand why that's an extraordinarily bad idea.
(Note that this does not require absolute equality, but rather relative equality. There are, if one considers market dynamics in such a system, good reasons to believe that on the whole this would exert upper bounds on the size of salaries themselves--effectively eliminating the super-salaries of the CEO without actually bothering to prohibit them.)
Quite the opposite in the cases of CEOs - they'd just give themselves enormous bonuses with which they could buy whole mansions, enormous yachts etc. etc. in a single year, instead of saving up over the whole tenure of their contract for such things.

In short, corruption would quite possibly be made even worse in such a system, and people would live for the moment more, which leads to massive problems in the short, medium and indeed long term, when there is very little investment into the future of an organisation.
This is just one hypothetical. The point is that a "classless" society is not classless by virtue of its state at any particular historical moment. Rather it is structurally classless in the sense that it does not provide for the development of class interests.
One needs to provide for the development of class interests, because otherwise people don't want to work, because there's very little benefit for them.
Do people at the top "work hard"? While there are obvious exceptions, I think on most empirical measures you would find that the lowliest people tend to work harder and longer than a majority at the top.
I don't think you'll find that's true.

Working as the CEO of a company or as a politician is much, much harder than working as the receptionist or as one of the office clerks involved in that process, not only because of the sheer scale of what you have to deal with, but also from the stress of knowing that messing up at all might well cost your entire career in one fell swoop.
How many vacation days has Bush taken, again?
Far too many.

On the other hand, he has a pretty tough job, as I'm sure you must be aware. The world hates him. He has to run a country about to fall into a recession. The advice he took on launching a war on Iraq given to him by Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and so on, was flawed, and he has to deal with an unprofitable mess, that does nothing good for the reputation of the US overseas.

His job is not an easy one, and I can see why he needs so many breaks, to be honest.
Meanwhile, you must believe that the people "underneath" are stupid, or irrational, or both.
Not really, no. Most people "underneath", as you put it, are just a bit lacking in motivation and the will to see things through. It's not a short term process by any means. It can take generations to work your way up the system, whereas falling back down can be done with extreme haste.
You say they work hard to raise their own status... but do you really think they haven't noticed that this virtually never happens? (If you do, you would be mistaken.)
Happens quite a bit here in the UK, actually. My own parents were working class when I was a baby, and now we're pretty much as middle class as it gets.

And do you know why they became wealthy?

Because they worked their arses off, moved house about 8 times when the property market meant that we could make a few thousand pounds from doing so, and have never made any particularly stupid moves financially.

Difference absolutely is inequality.

I have brown hair. My friend has black hair. Are we "unequal"?

And where you get inequality, you get classes of people

No, for actual economic classes to arise requires more than that.

You have to keep in mind that for most of us (as for Marx) "class" doesn't have the same meaning as "income level"--it's structural, not purely a measure of the raw economic well-being of a person.

Marx drew the distinction, for instance, between the owners of the means of production and those who rent their labor to those owners--a distinction that does indeed correlate with raw income inequality (generally speaking, the owners are much richer than the workers) but which, more importantly, signifies (a) a sphere of class competition (because the interests of the workers for higher wages necessarily conflicts with the interests of the capitalists for higher profits) and (b) relations of power and exploitation (because the ownership of the means of production gives the capitalist the advantage.)

Socialism, at its core, strives to eliminate this class distinction by converting the means of production into public ownership, making everyone a worker and a partial, equal owner (as a citizen.)

Note how this does not require perfect economic inequality, or a lack of material economic incentives... though in an important, though limited, sense, such a society might be "classless."

Erm, yes they do. If you earn even slightly more money than anyone else, or own slightly more things than anyone else, you are of a higher class than them, especially in a society where most people are on equal pay.

No, you just earn more money than them.

Now, if you have economic power because of your wealth, or substantively disproportionate political power, then there is a problem... but this does not preclude the existence of material economic incentives, though it might weaken them somewhat. (Is that a worthy price to pay for freedom and equality? I say yes.)

Which is why a classless society is an impossibility, as there's little motivation to do anything

It's nice to see an argument. How long did it take you?

While I'm not inclined to argue that human nature will miraculously change, nor that human selfishness is purely a result of capitalist ideology, I do think it's worth noting that a good deal of productive and valuable human activity right now is not financially rewarded, yet nevertheless often has immense efforts invested into it. Human motivations are a complicated thing... we will do things out of shame, or competition, or compassion, or boredom, or a sense of duty, or enjoyment of the activity, even if we do not receive a material reward.

Is there some work that is so awful that it wouldn't be done? Perhaps. Then it should be shared... which seems much the preferential option to simply making the desperate poor do it.

In a classed society, I work hard, and the people that don't suffer for it.

Unless they're rich. The poverty of the poor makes them desperate enough to work very hard, and the wealth of the rich insulates them from the effects of their laziness.

To me, that sounds like a twisted incentives system.

... yes, and again I have nothing to counter-argue, because you sit around avoiding a debate that you're bound to lose, because history speaks on my side, and all you have is a bunch of idealistic bullshit ingrained into your mind.

You said: "It's 100% bullshit, however they attain it. It doesn't happen, and it won't."

You made a statement. You didn't support it. It was I who had nothing to counter-argue... how can I respond to that when you won't explain why it's "100% bullshit" and why it won't happen?

Weirdly enough, you seem to think that simply making unsupported statements that you feel are right is sufficient to making an argument, and when I don't respond to them because I have nothing substantive to respond to I am being evasive.

No, it's just not the answer that you want to hear.

Indeed it wasn't... chiefly because it wasn't an answer at all. :rolleyes:

It requires a rather telling and close-minded contempt for your opposition to throw patronizing insults instead of making arguments.

If you want a classless society, you need extreme repression, or it won't occur, because people will simply do unofficial deals

First, assuming an open and democratic structure precludes extreme political corruption such as existed in the Soviet Union, the "black market" is unlikely to result in anything truly resembling class inequality--wealth concentration in a society of approximate economic equality is simply too obvious.

Second, there is no reason a classless society could not use market mechanisms to price goods (though labor would be problematic.)

Once again, you're getting plastered in a debate that you lack the military or political acumen to win.

Not at all... we have simply gone in a circle.

First you insisted that the failure of the Anarchists was in their lack of strong, centralized leadership, as proven by the fact that they lost in the Spanish Civil War. I responded that it probably had more to do with the fact that their "allies" joined with their enemies to weaken and destroy them.

You responded by stating that "that's how war works"... and I asked what the connection was to anarchist political organization.

Then you began talking about how the Republican side was divided between different political ideologies and organizations, and how this was the primary causal factor in their defeat... and we stayed with that theme for a while, until I asked, again, how that this was the fault of the Anarchists.

To which you just spouted about how incompetent the Anarchists were, without explaining how the problems they faced were a consequence of either their own incompetence or of their system of political organization (as opposed to, say, the difficulties that always pop up in war in general compounded by the hostility of their allies and their lack of foreign support.)

And, then, finally, we returned to point one: Anarchism is clearly bad because the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War lost to the Nationalists and the Stalinists.

Why should I go through that again?

Why?

Because otherwise you can't go against human nature. Communism defies human nature because it presumes that society can set everything up to be equal and that classes will not form. But classes form the way they do because they have to in order to keep society functioning.

Right now, we have scarcity. We only have so many resources. We have to split it up. Is it fair? Not necessarily, but that's just how life works right now. It's why humans are still beholden to survival instincts despite evolving a much higher intelligence. As a result we form the societies we do.

Until you can eliminate scarcity, you cannot eliminate that which caused human nature in the first place. With scarcity, communism is simply impossible. Without it, I honestly do think it would develop naturally, but even there it would require education against xenophobia and the like. (Xenophobia being another natural trait arising as a result of survival instincts, more specifically the tribal aspects.)

Communism defies human nature because it presumes that society can set everything up to be equal and that classes will not form.

Class society is highly unnatural--it tends to depend upon property relations that are artificial products of organized coercion.

The better question as regards human nature, I think, is whether or not communism can exist in a highly unnatural society.

Right now, we have scarcity. We only have so many resources. We have to split it up. Is it fair? Not necessarily, but that's just how life works right now.

Right. All economic systems must deal with scarcity. The abolition of scarcity is not so much communism as it is the abolition of economics.

Communists argue that the means of production and distribution of these goods should be in public hands, and the standard of distribution should be fairly egalitarian. In what way does this preclude scarcity?

It's why humans are still beholden to survival instincts despite evolving a much higher intelligence.

"Survival instincts" among social creatures like humans tend to include altruism, as well as a variety of other motivations for labor that don't depend on vast economic inequality.

Until you can eliminate scarcity, you cannot eliminate that which caused human nature in the first place.

I don't think we can "eliminate" human nature at all, scarcity or no scarcity... not without radical physical alterations that I would probably find unacceptable anyway.

As long as we are dealing with humans, we have to work in its framework.

I didn't mean eliminate human nature. I meant work around it to create the sort of equal society we wish.

Whatever the case, I think we will have to agree to disagree here. I don't see communism as feasible, whereas you do, and I don't think either of us are going to change our opinions just yet.

I have brown hair. My friend has black hair. Are we "unequal"?
Yep.
No, for actual economic classes to arise requires more than that.

You have to keep in mind that for most of us (as for Marx) "class" doesn't have the same meaning as "income level"--it's structural, not purely a measure of the raw economic well-being of a person.

Marx drew the distinction, for instance, between the owners of the means of production and those who rent their labor to those owners--a distinction that does indeed correlate with raw income inequality (generally speaking, the owners are much richer than the workers) but which, more importantly, signifies (a) a sphere of class competition (because the interests of the workers for higher wages necessarily conflicts with the interests of the capitalists for higher profits) and (b) relations of power and exploitation (because the ownership of the means of production gives the capitalist the advantage.)
...

Right...
Socialism, at its core, strives to eliminate this class distinction by converting the means of production into public ownership, making everyone a worker and a partial, equal owner (as a citizen.)
No it doesn't.

Socialism isn't one single ideology.

Your wankey Marxist version of Socialism is about workers controlling the means of production, and the rest of that stuff which was proven to be utterly inefficient when they tried it in Russia from 1917-18. Basically, it led to people producing a subsistence level of goods, and working 3 or 4 day weeks. Which is pretty rubbish.

I'm a socialist, but I don't believe in pointless pseudo-intellectualism. Oh no. Debating Marxist theory doesn't change the world, pragmatism does.

We live, and will forever live, in a classed society. Even bloody animals essentially have class systems. Socialism shouldn't be about making a classless society, it should be about helping people out when they're in need of help, by whatever means that's done.
Note how this does not require perfect economic inequality, or a lack of material economic incentives... though in an important, though limited, sense, such a society might be "classless."
Yes, this is why your version of socialism has never caught on.
No, you just earn more money than them.

Now, if you have economic power because of your wealth, or substantively disproportionate political power, then there is a problem... but this does not preclude the existence of material economic incentives, though it might weaken them somewhat. (Is that a worthy price to pay for freedom and equality? I say yes.)
...

You just utterly killed your own point, there, nice one.

"All we need for equality is some inequality"... yes, Soheran... *pats on head*
It's nice to see an argument. How long did it take you?
About 0 seconds, since it's patently obvious.
While I'm not inclined to argue that human nature will miraculously change, nor that human selfishness is purely a result of capitalist ideology, I do think it's worth noting that a good deal of productive and valuable human activity right now is not financially rewarded, yet nevertheless often has immense efforts invested into it. Human motivations are a complicated thing... we will do things out of shame, or competition, or compassion, or boredom, or a sense of duty, or enjoyment of the activity, even if we do not receive a material reward.

Is there some work that is so awful that it wouldn't be done? Perhaps. Then it should be shared... which seems much the preferential option to simply making the desperate poor do it.



Unless they're rich. The poverty of the poor makes them desperate enough to work very hard, and the wealth of the rich insulates them from the effects of their laziness.
No, it doesn't. This is an absolutely severe fault with most socialists, a kind of 'fuck the rich, they don't do anything' kind of attitude. The rich are rich because they work hard.

If they don't work hard, they rapidly run out of money, and slide back down the scale.
To me, that sounds like a twisted incentives system.
That's probably because you don't actually know what you're talking about.
You said: "It's 100% bullshit, however they attain it. It doesn't happen, and it won't."

You made a statement. You didn't support it. It was I who had nothing to counter-argue... how can I respond to that when you won't explain why it's "100% bullshit" and why it won't happen?

Weirdly enough, you seem to think that simply making unsupported statements that you feel are right is sufficient to making an argument, and when I don't respond to them because I have nothing substantive to respond to I am being evasive.
*shrugs*

about 10,000 years of recorded human history is on my side. Not yours. This is my bloody proof, and it's all that anyone could need, ever.
Indeed it wasn't... chiefly because it wasn't an answer at all. :rolleyes:

It requires a rather telling and close-minded contempt for your opposition to throw patronizing insults instead of making arguments.
I wouldn't have so much bloody contempt for you if you had the intellectual capacity to have proper argument, instead of coming out with some ridiculous Marxist bollocks and claiming it as 'proof'.
First, assuming an open and democratic structure precludes extreme political corruption such as existed in the Soviet Union, the "black market" is unlikely to result in anything truly resembling class inequality--wealth concentration in a society of approximate economic equality is simply too obvious.
...

You want a state authoritarian enough to control people's wealth, but somehow without any corruption?

Is it going to be run by fucking robots or something?
Second, there is no reason a classless society could not use market mechanisms to price goods (though labor would be problematic.)
Yeah, best of luck with that not ending up with a concentration of wealth in skilled merchants...
Not at all... we have simply gone in a circle.
... this is unsurprising.
First you insisted that the failure of the Anarchists was in their lack of strong, centralized leadership, as proven by the fact that they lost in the Spanish Civil War. I responded that it probably had more to do with the fact that their "allies" joined with their enemies to weaken and destroy them.

You responded by stating that "that's how war works"... and I asked what the connection was to anarchist political organization.

Then you began talking about how the Republican side was divided between different political ideologies and organizations, and how this was the primary causal factor in their defeat... and we stayed with that theme for a while, until I asked, again, how that this was the fault of the Anarchists.

To which you just spouted about how incompetent the Anarchists were, without explaining how the problems they faced were a consequence of either their own incompetence or of their system of political organization (as opposed to, say, the difficulties that always pop up in war in general compounded by the hostility of their allies and their lack of foreign support.)

And, then, finally, we returned to point one: Anarchism is clearly bad because the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War lost to the Nationalists and the Stalinists.
... the problem with the anarchists is that a) they didn't have a unified leadership like the Stalinists, so they were ill-equipped to form up and fight together, and b) that because of this, they were seen as being incompetent, which led to them being poorly supplied by foreign powers, and then subjugated completely by the Stalinists because they couldn't form a proper countering force to them.

This is what I was trying to say, and at all times you basically replied with "aah, BUT", at which point I countered it. The fact that we have gone in circles is basically because of the fact that you are seemingly unable to link all of the various elements leading to the Republican defeat in your mind.

Do you actually need everything spoonfed to you, or are you just doing it to wind me up?
Why should I go through that again?
Again, I feel similarly on the matter.

Yep.

Um... in what sense, exactly?

Certainly not politically or economically, and those are the relevant considerations regarding "class."

Socialism isn't one single ideology.

No, but there are general common themes, and that's one of them.

Your wankey Marxist version of Socialism

I'm not a Marxist, though I'll admit being influenced by Marxist class analysis.

Of course, considering that the sum total of your arguments last time we had an argument about Marxist theory was "Ah! You must be a Marxist!", your irrationality and close-mindedness on this subject should not surprise me.

is about workers controlling the means of production, and the rest of that stuff which was proven to be utterly inefficient when they tried it in Russia from 1917-18.

I fail to see how public ownership necessarily results in inefficiency and production at a subsistence level... care to explain?

We live, and will forever live, in a classed society. Even bloody animals essentially have class systems.

Though, interestingly enough, pre-agricultural humans (for the most part) don't seem to.

Yes, this is why your version of socialism has never caught on.

What is why? How?

You just utterly killed your own point, there, nice one.

"All we need for equality is some inequality"... yes, Soheran... *pats on head*

Is basic reading comprehension difficult for you?

Yes, a classless society without major inequalities in economic and political power may nevertheless have small levels of economic inequality for the sake of efficiency... so?

It's still not capitalism--it's still far more egalitarian than what we have now.

About 0 seconds, since it's patently obvious.

Impressive!

Next time, how about doing your opponent a favor and actually stating it, okay? So I can have something substantive to reply to... as I did (though you ignored it)?

Whining about how wrong I am just isn't good enough.

No, it doesn't. This is an absolutely severe fault with most socialists, a kind of 'fuck the rich, they don't do anything' kind of attitude. The rich are rich because they work hard.

Or because they inherit wealth... or because they are particularly naturally talented... or because they had the right opportunities....

If the causal factor in wealth is "working hard", then we would expect that everyone who worked hard would be rich. Which is obviously false.

If they don't work hard, they rapidly run out of money, and slide back down the scale.

If they don't work at all, maybe, or if they're horrifically irresponsible... though if you're rich and well-connected enough, even that doesn't necessarily matter. (See George W. Bush.)

But they get opportunities and second chances that the poor never receive, again and again.

*shrugs*

about 10,000 years of recorded human history is on my side. Not yours.

The same thing could be said for every social, economic, and political development, ever.

I wouldn't have so much bloody contempt for you if you had the intellectual capacity to have proper argument,

I do, and I've presented them.

instead of coming out with some ridiculous Marxist bollocks and claiming it as 'proof'.

The only thing remotely Marxist that I have posted was a reference to Marxist class analysis, which was perfectly legitimate and relevant to the point: the difference between structural analyses of class and purely income-based analyses.

You want a state authoritarian enough to control people's wealth, but somehow without any corruption?

I don't want a "state" at all, certainly not an authoritarian state... and I did not say it would be without corruption, merely that, like most open democracies, it would not be characterized by the sort of extreme political inequality and authoritarianism that protected the corrupt in the Soviet Union.

Yeah, best of luck with that not ending up with a concentration of wealth in skilled merchants...

Society owns the means of production. Explain how "skilled merchants" are going to concentrate wealth.

b) that because of this, they were seen as being incompetent, which led to them being poorly supplied by foreign powers,

Um, might this have had something to do with the fact that the Soviet Union wasn't exactly keen on supporting rather anti-Stalinist leftists... especially not when they had closer allies to support instead?

and then subjugated completely by the Stalinists because they couldn't form a proper countering force to them.

The Stalinists were in a superior position both with respect to the central government and with respect to external aid. That's not a matter of Anarchist disorganization.

When everything else is the same, people will focus on whatever differences.

Maybe. That's still not inequality.

No, it isn't. I'm a socialist and I don't believe in any of that crap.

The term "socialism" has been appropriated to mean "welfare-statism" by some; that is clearly not what I am talking about.

Sorry, you just seem to stick by his ideas on class like it's some kind of holy grail of rightness,

Actually, I have my own problems with the specificities of the Marxist notion of class... in particular, the Marxian economics that are associated with it are (mostly) nonsense.

The point, again, was about the difference between a structural notion of class and a purely income-based one.

Because most people are idiots,

And you're going to somehow guarantee that the ones who aren't rule instead?

And these non-idiots, of course, will be wise and benevolent enough to have both everyone else's best interests at heart and understand their needs and perspectives in the way that a democratic system automatically does?

and mob rule always wins.

The most casual glance at existing liberal democracies today, whatever their problems, shows this to be false.

Actually incorrect, since Neanderthal times we were being led by chieftans.

"Chieftains", such as they existed, had little in the way of genuine political power.

The fact that you seemingly can't help but talk in overlong buzzwords, that do nothing to make your argument sound any better, and indeed make it sound both pointless and extremely pretentious?

"Perfect economic equality"? "Material economic incentives"? These are "overlong buzzwords" to you?

:rolleyes:

In that kind of society, any inequality is a major inequality,

Maybe if we want to speak relatively: an absolutely small difference in income may make a larger social difference than the same difference in income would today.

But economic and political power are not relative measures, but absolute ones: just because having a fancier car might make more of a difference doesn't mean that the owner can wield power the way the very wealthy can today. She doesn't own any means of production, and she doesn't have a quantity of resources so disproportionate as to enable her to gain highly privileged access to political figures.

You start using that for the good of a society, and it becomes a classed one.

Obviously, this is a matter of degree.

Indeed, it's some kind of pointless mishmash with the worst parts of both unrestrained capitalism

Unrestrained capitalism plays in how?

and repressive communism.

Nothing I've argued for is remotely "repressive."

That doesn't make it necessarily better... not much point having everyone at a pretty 'meh' standard of living, after all.

As opposed to some being in misery and others in luxury? Yes... there's a pretty clear point.

Show me an example of a successful classless society, please.

Define "successful."

And you keep that wealth by not doing anything stupid with it.

The more wealth you have, the stupider you have to be to lose it all... which plays into my earlier point, that the rich, unlike the poor, have room to fall.

Talent's useless without the will to exploit it for all it's worth.

So? Will's useless without anything to back it up... and "will" as you are using it here is in part a product of environmental factors anyway.

And how do you get those?

By working hard to make contacts, and if you were born with those contacts, by working hard to make the most of them.

So? My argument has never been that working hard is irrelevant... simply that it occurs within a framework that is already heavily slanted.

Working hard is indeed the causal factor. If you don't work hard to find what your unique talent is, then you miss it.

Working hard in an office, or a factory, or a woodcutter's hut, will make you richer than the person who puts less effort in.

Maybe. So what?

The fact that all else being equal working hard makes me richer than someone who doesn't hardly provides a justification for a society where all else is not remotely equal.

He's got his charisma and contacts which he exploits, hard.

Or gets his friends and family to exploit for him.

No, they don't. It's just that too many people unrealistically dream of going from poor to rich in a single leap.

And you only confirm my point.

The poor, you say, must put time and effort into becoming rich... they can't do it "in a single leap."

The rich, on the other hand, are already there.

Right... and on all of the important ones, you have been beaten, in a cyclical motion...

Your notion of "beaten" is... interesting, considering that you have barely even responded to most of my arguments.

You'll never have equality if you don't have a state to enforce it.

And why is equality something that needs "enforcing"? It seems to me that the opposite is most likely the case... the concentration of wealth, after all, has always been defended by state power.

And why is the state the only political institution capable of "enforcement"? Even if war requires a centralized hierarchical leadership, basic enforcement and political decision-making doesn't.

By selling commodities at better rates than their competitors?

Yes, but they don't own it... they don't reap the profits.

No.

Had they been a more efficient and effective force, both politically and militarily, the anarchists could easily have gained much more aid from abroad, and not necessarily the Soviet Union.

Anti-Stalinist governments might have been more inclined to help out

Why would anti-Stalinist governments have been any more inclined to help out revolutionary anarchists than the Soviet Union was? Especially since most of them were inclined to stay out of the whole mess?

Clinging to Marxism/Leninism would make them Old Left. They don't become New Left just because they may happen to have been born recently.I think this is a rather pointless debate, but partly in the name of historical/intellectual accuracy for its own sake and partly in the hope that I can prevent any further waste of time on this issue, I'll try pulling my, "Well, as a professional political theorist I can tell you..."

As a professional political theorist I can tell you that you're both right, but you're also both mostly wrong. The "New Left" in political theory is a term used to describe intellectual and activist developments within Leftism during the 1960s and 1970s. In the proper sense of the term, there is no "New Left" today just like there is no "Old Left" today, because in terms of actual movements both of them collapsed over thirty years ago. We may speak of the "legacies" of these movements today, but it is technically inaccurate to refer to anyone today as a member of the "New Left"--it doesn't exist.

But this is to a certain extent a matter of technical terminology ("what counts as a movement?"). More germane to your dispute is a discussion of the relation of "New Left" theorists to Marx and Lenin as well as Marxism/Leninism. Here things become confusing in large part because at least some New Left theorists begin to distinguish between an ideological "Marxism" as a historical legacy of Marx that is not exhaustive of "Marxian" philosophical thought.

Thus, Melkor is absolutely correct in saying that the New Left rejects "Marxism/Leninism" as fully developed in the guiding theories of both the USSR and the international labor movement. Nevertheless, the defining feature of the New Left is neither a rejection of Marx nor a rejection of Lenin, as clearly demonstrated in the fact that one of the more influential New Left journals titled itself "Marxism Today" and the proliferation of articles on Marx and Lenin in New Left texts in general. The defining break with the Old Left was rather a rejection of labor-party politics and an emphasis on the "social" aspects of Marxian thought: alienation, anomie, ideology, domination.

Ultimately, the New Left devolves into a mindless construction of "counter-culture" without any realizable praxis, and arguably most of the New Left activists on the ground were not really aware of their debt to Marx and Lenin in the way that the Old Left was... The Old Left used to hold Marxist training classes for industrial workers; the New Left held "love-ins."

But this doesn't change the fact that they (or their leaders) were getting their ideas from the likes of Herbert Marcuse and the Frankfurt School (self-proclaimed Marxians), and they were producing thinkers such as Harry Cleaver and his "Autonomous Marxism."

My point is simply this: that to distinguish between Old Left followers of Marx/Lenin and a New Left which rejects them is historically and intellectually inaccurate. But it is probably even worse to assume that "New Left" means "anything after the 60s."

Maybe. That's still not inequality.
Yes, yes it is.
The term "socialism" has been appropriated to mean "welfare-statism" by some; that is clearly not what I am talking about.
That which you do talk about has never worked, unlike the welfare state, which obviously does.
Actually, I have my own problems with the specificities of the Marxist notion of class... in particular, the Marxian economics that are associated with it are (mostly) nonsense.

The point, again, was about the difference between a structural notion of class and a purely income-based one.
Aye, still utter pish.
And you're going to somehow guarantee that the ones who aren't rule instead?
Why bother?

It happens by itself, after all.
And these non-idiots, of course, will be wise and benevolent enough to have both everyone else's best interests at heart and understand their needs and perspectives in the way that a democratic system automatically does?
Democracies don't automatically understand the needs and perspectives of everyone involved, and the kind of overly democratic organisations that try to fall on their arse, see proportionally elected governments all over the world.
The most casual glance at existing liberal democracies today, whatever their problems, shows this to be false.
Not true, it's just that, generally, most people are so uninterested by politics that they don't care enough to rise up against their government, and it's not until they get rubbed very much the wrong way that anything happens.

See Maggie Thatcher's regime. By the end, it was brought to complete collapse by daily strikes, massive riots over poll tax and a complete loss of faith from the British people.

And if that wasn't mob rule, I don't know what is.
"Chieftains", such as they existed, had little in the way of genuine political power.
Incorrect, they dictated where the tribes they commanded migrated to, and where to build more permanent settlements, as well as declaring wars on other tribes or groups of tribes, which is about as much power as you could muster back then.
"Perfect economic equality"? "Material economic incentives"? These are "overlong buzzwords" to you?

:rolleyes:
Pretty much, yeah.
Maybe if we want to speak relatively: an absolutely small difference in income may make a larger social difference than the same difference in income would today.
Yes, and we are talking relatively when it comes to a classless society, which is why it's a ludicrous idea.
But economic and political power are not relative measures, but absolute ones: just because having a fancier car might make more of a difference doesn't mean that the owner can wield power the way the very wealthy can today. She doesn't own any means of production, and she doesn't have a quantity of resources so disproportionate as to enable her to gain highly privileged access to political figures.
But in this classless state of direct democracy, any kind of advantage is a huge one. The amount of jealousy, and all that goes with it, caused when people are living even slightly better off in a land supposedly classless and equal is only going to be increased in relative terms, no?
Obviously, this is a matter of degree.
No, it isn't. If your equal society starts going on the road to what is essentially capitalism and plays right into the hands of corruption, then it's hardly a matter of degrees, and more one of utter betrayal.
Unrestrained capitalism plays in [i]how?
Through the use of bonuses.
Nothing I've argued for is remotely "repressive."
But as I've pointed out, you cannot have equality without an organisation with lots of power to keep it so.
As opposed to some being in misery and others in luxury? Yes... there's a pretty clear point.
So you'd rather have slackers getting the same quality of life as those who worked hard for the benefit of a society they have gained nothing from?
Define "successful."
One that lasted over 100 years without fragmenting, and had a large impact on history. Because I can produce hundreds of examples of classed societies doing the same.
The more wealth you have, the stupider you have to be to lose it all... which plays into my earlier point, that the rich, unlike the poor, have room to fall.
Yeah, fine, they have more room to fall, but the poor have more room to succeed in.
So? Will's useless without anything to back it up... and "will" as you are using it here is in part a product of environmental factors anyway.

So? My argument has never been that working hard is [i]irrelevant... simply that it occurs within a framework that is already heavily slanted.

Maybe. So what?
You can't slack off, no matter what your position, or you will fail. This is how a classed society works.

That's the 'so what?'.
The fact that all else being equal working hard makes me richer than someone who doesn't hardly provides a justification for a society where all else is not remotely equal.
Erm, yes it does. Because why else would you work hard? For the kicks and giggles?
Or gets his friends and family to exploit for him.
Right. But he made those friends through his charisma, and he gained enough support from his family for them to help him out. Almost everyone's family is going to help them out, I don't think you can really level that especially at the rich.
And you only confirm my point.

The poor, you say, must put time and effort into becoming rich... they can't do it "in a single leap."

The rich, on the other hand, are already there.
The rich, though, have to work hard not to lose it all in one fell swoop.

Do you see how this works, now?
Your notion of "beaten" is... interesting, considering that you have barely even responded to most of my arguments.
...

I've wasted literally hours responding to your 'arguments'.
And why is equality something that needs "enforcing"?
Because it doesn't occur naturally.
It seems to me that the opposite is most likely the case... the concentration of wealth, after all, has always been defended by state power.
It would, though, wouldn't it?

In the closest to an anarchy we've ever really had, the Wild West, was there equality? No. There wasn't.
And why is the state the only political institution capable of "enforcement"?
Who else is going to do it? A bunch of vigilantes, of an incorruptable nature?
Even if war requires a centralized hierarchical leadership, basic enforcement and political decision-making doesn't.
Erm, yes it does, which is why politicians employ oh so many interns.
Yes, but they don't own it... they don't reap the profits.
Then what's the point in bothering?
Why would anti-Stalinist governments have been any more inclined to help out revolutionary anarchists than the Soviet Union was? Especially since most of them were inclined to stay out of the whole mess?
Basically to make a stand against Comintern?

Maybe. That's still not inequality.

The term "socialism" has been appropriated to mean "welfare-statism" by some; that is clearly not what I am talking about.

Actually, I have my own problems with the specificities of the Marxist notion of class... in particular, the Marxian economics that are associated with it are (mostly) nonsense.

The point, again, was about the difference between a structural notion of class and a purely income-based one.

And you're going to somehow guarantee that the ones who aren't rule instead?

And these non-idiots, of course, will be wise and benevolent enough to have both everyone else's best interests at heart and understand their needs and perspectives in the way that a democratic system automatically does?

The most casual glance at existing liberal democracies today, whatever their problems, shows this to be false.

"Chieftains", such as they existed, had little in the way of genuine political power.

"Perfect economic equality"? "Material economic incentives"? These are "overlong buzzwords" to you?
:rolleyes:

Maybe if we want to speak relatively: an absolutely small difference in income may make a larger social difference than the same difference in income would today.

But economic and political power are not relative measures, but absolute ones: just because having a fancier car might make more of a difference doesn't mean that the owner can wield power the way the very wealthy can today. She doesn't own any means of production, and she doesn't have a quantity of resources so disproportionate as to enable her to gain highly privileged access to political figures.

Obviously, this is a matter of degree.

Unrestrained capitalism plays in how?

Nothing I've argued for is remotely "repressive."

As opposed to some being in misery and others in luxury? Yes... there's a pretty clear point.

Define "successful."

The more wealth you have, the stupider you have to be to lose it all... which plays into my earlier point, that the rich, unlike the poor, have room to fall.

So? Will's useless without anything to back it up... and "will" as you are using it here is in part a product of environmental factors anyway.

So? My argument has never been that working hard is irrelevant... simply that it occurs within a framework that is already heavily slanted.

Maybe. So what?

The fact that all else being equal working hard makes me richer than someone who doesn't hardly provides a justification for a society where all else is not remotely equal.

Or gets his friends and family to exploit for him.

And you only confirm my point.\

The poor, you say, must put time and effort into becoming rich... they can't do it "in a single leap."

The rich, on the other hand, are already there.

Your notion of "beaten" is... interesting, considering that you have barely even responded to most of my arguments.

And why is equality something that needs "enforcing"? It seems to me that the opposite is most likely the case... the concentration of wealth, after all, has always been defended by state power.

And why is the state the only political institution capable of "enforcement"? Even if war requires a centralized hierarchical leadership, basic enforcement and political decision-making doesn't.

Yes, but they don't own it... they don't reap the profits.

Why would anti-Stalinist governments have been any more inclined to help out revolutionary anarchists than the Soviet Union was? Especially since most of them were inclined to stay out of the whole mess?

:rolleyes: Okay, time for me to settle this case.....somehow :p

Soheran, you make a fairly good point about communism and some of its benifits. But unfortunately in todays world, none of Marx's theory can come into play. A classless society takes away free will and choice, and communism states that the goverment makes all the choices for you and runs your life, which none of here probably want. I would be supprised to see a classless society work that would survive 100 years or over. People should have the freedom to live their life as they please, not as how someone else sees it.
So maybe America is the oddball of the world, so what? So what if America is getting screwed up by politicans that are nut jobs, rich/famous people that are getting stupider by the second, illegal immigrants that cant even speak our language, and a congress that can get almost nothing done to end important issues? Its america, and we can live how we like, without the government saying how we should live it.

Quotes:
(someone stated this one, but I'll remberse it)
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried."- Winston Churchill

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happyness. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." -Thomas Jefferson

"Communism, while made of a classless society of people, a utopia where everyone is equal, can never exist, and any such utopias that exist should be abolished." -Marx

Aye, still utter pish.

Your argumentation impresses, as always. :rolleyes:

It happens by itself, after all.

The record of foolish and destructive dictators indicates otherwise.

Democracies don't automatically understand the needs and perspectives of everyone involved,

The needs and perspectives of everyone involved are inputted through the voting process. It's structural--it doesn't depend on the wisdom or motives of the leaders.

and the kind of overly democratic organisations that try to fall on their arse, see proportionally elected governments all over the world.

Um, they work fairly well... they hardly "fall on their arse."

And if that wasn't mob rule, I don't know what is.

Deposing a leader through popular pressure isn't "mob rule."

Mob enforcement of rules made by illegitimate bodies in an arbitrary fashion might qualify... but generally when the analogy is made to democracy, there is some kind of argument as to how the (seemingly) legitimate processes of democratic decision-making are in fact arbitrary and illegitimate.

I'm waiting.

Incorrect, they dictated where the tribes they commanded migrated to, and where to build more permanent settlements, as well as declaring wars on other tribes or groups of tribes, which is about as much power as you could muster back then.

They may have made decisions, but they didn't "dictate" anything... they didn't have access to the sorts of enforcement mechanisms that make that possible.

Pretty much, yeah.

So I should have said... what?

Yes, and we [i]are[i] talking relatively when it comes to a classless society

No, we're not.

Just because everyone is more or less equal doesn't mean getting a special privilege elevates you to a new class... not in the way people who speak of a "classless society" use class, nor really under any reasonable definition of economic class.

But in this classless state of direct democracy, any kind of advantage is a huge one. The amount of jealousy, and all that goes with it, caused when people are living even slightly better off in a land supposedly classless and equal is only going to be increased in relative terms, no?

Maybe, though I would suggest that the fact that the economic decisions are more public and democratic would tend to reduce this tendency.

Regardless, jealousy doesn't indicate a class system either.

No, it isn't. If your equal society starts going on the road to what is essentially capitalism

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Even a radically unequal system that incorporated public ownership of the means of production would not be capitalist.

Depending on the method of determining incentives, it might make sense to call it market-oriented, but not capitalist.

Through the use of bonuses.

That's "unrestrained capitalism"?

But as I've pointed out, you cannot have equality without an organisation with lots of power to keep it so.

And as I said, it's more inequality that requires that sort of artificial coercion. There is no other way to protect accumulated wealth.

So you'd rather have slackers getting the same quality of life as those who worked hard for the benefit of a society they have gained nothing from?

Under the condition that everyone knew what they were getting? Yes.

If you don't want to work hard without extra reward, or if whatever extra reward provided isn't sufficient... don't do it.

One that lasted over 100 years without fragmenting,

Lots and lots of examples of that... like I've said, pre-agricultural human societies seem to have been largely classless, and that human social mode lasted for the vast majority of the time our species had existed.

and had a large impact on history.

That seems an arbitrary measure of success to me.

Yeah, fine, they have more room to fall, but the poor have more room to succeed in.

Not at all... if a rich person shows the talent and determination, and gets the luck, a poor person would need to rise, he or she would simply rise even higher.

You can't slack off, no matter what your position, or you will fail.

Fail at what?

If I'm a rich person, I may decide that I don't need so many luxuries, and accept a reduction in my income in trade for more leisure.

If I'm a poor person, such a choice, while still technically possible, is likely to be far more difficult.

Erm, yes it does. Because why else would you work hard? For the kicks and giggles?

First, that's not a response to my point, because it doesn't explain why we should accept a society with extreme inequality in opportunity.

Second, I already noted that your view of human motivation is highly limited... human beings put effort into things for lots of reasons, only some of them monetary. Competition, even for nothing tangible, is a particularly strong motive... so is avoiding shame.

Almost everyone's family is going to help them out, I don't think you can really level that especially at the rich.

Yes, but some people's families are much more capable of helping them out than others.

The rich, though, have to work hard not to lose it all in one fell swoop.

"In one fell swoop"? What are you talking about?

I've wasted literally hours responding to your 'arguments'.

Which only confirms the observation that time spent and quality produced are not necessarily proportionate.

Out of curiosity... how much are you being paid? ;)

Because it doesn't occur naturally.

How can anyone maintain ownership over a substantial land area, let alone a factory miles away, without organized coercive force?

Who else is going to do it? A bunch of vigilantes, of an incorruptable nature?

No, the public, locally, in a decentralized radically democratic fashion.

Erm, yes it does, which is why politicians employ oh so many interns.

The connection being what?

Then what's the point in bothering?

Um, modern corporate capitalism has already firmly established a difference between management and ownership.

Basically to make a stand against Comintern?

Why would they have supported the Anarchists to do so? If that was their wish, they could have supported Franco.

A classless society takes away free will and choice,

How so?

and communism states that the goverment makes all the choices for you and runs your life,

Not even remotely.

Indeed, communism states that instead of my life being dominated by economic institutions controlled by the wealthy, I should have the freedom to play a direct role in controlling those economic institutions.

People should have the freedom to live their life as they please, not as how someone else sees it.

Agreed!

And that is precisely why we should reject capitalism, which instead puts our lives under the control of distant others.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried."- Winston Churchill

I elevate democracy--at least a properly-functioning, genuinely republican democracy--to a higher ideal than that.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happyness. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." -Thomas Jefferson

"Life, liberty, and estate"--Locke

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"--Jefferson

I know which one I like better. ;)

The fact that coalitions only represent the actual power relations in society should be enough to make them questionable;

Yes, if we accept coalitions as the determining factor of justness.

But instead I have argued that coalitions only result in justice if the "actual power relations" themselves are just: if we have genuine political equality, and even more if we have classlessness.

Not very closely, and especially because its whole logic prefers a politics of dishonesty: I will inevitably strike better bargains in a coalition if I "play the game," hide my real interests, claim dispossession of interest so as to avoid tipping my hand.

Avoiding this sort of dishonesty is a far easier ethical obligation to meet than concern for right for everyone... for one, it's much clearer to you that you're doing it, and for another, it doesn't require the sort of insight into other people's lives that is necessary for a broad concern for right.

If you decide on a level of taxation first, then fairness is going to be a problem because benefits are not distributed equally

Why not?

Yes, but if you decide on a tax scheme first, you construct my interest with respect to any given thing: it's not fair, from my perspective, to take my money and THEN decide to spend it on things I don't want.

But you know this from the outset... some of the money will be spent on what you want, and some on what you do not want.

Your decision on the general level of taxation will be determined by your recognition that you will not automatically get your way: there must be enough money to support the programs you want and to support the programs everyone else wants, otherwise yours might be shunted off to the side.

And spending for the sick or disabled comes at the expense of the healthy; spending for child care comes at the expense of people who have no children (and some who never will); etc. etc. etc.

Yes, obviously there's not perfect homogeneity of interests here either. But we no longer have a class conflict; for the most part, our conflicting interests will not be over how much should be taken (because the loss and benefit is more or less equivalent) but rather over what it should be spent on (where we can form coalitions).

If we are all affected equally by taxation and all (more or less) equally desirous of government aid, it is much easier to form an arrangement that benefits all than if government concern for broad social good runs necessarily opposed to some people's interest.

This is even more true if we accept as a matter of economic principle "to each according to his needs": that way, people who even under conditions of formal economic equality would be worse off (like the handicapped or those particularly prone to sickness) are brought up to a genuinely equal level with everyone else prior to the sort of coalition-based policymaking that otherwise might leave them behind.

So then you're going to tax the availability of goods for general consumption, making them more expensive (however expense gets translated into a moneyless economy)... so if I would rather have cheap/plentiful strawberries (for instance) than ramps I won't use, my interest is against ramps.

Yes, but it was your argument that a classless society would actually make this conflict more direct, not less so.

Moreover, though elsewhere you have recognized the significance of taking ourselves as having free will, your politics negates it: you would have everyone behave as if they are not free--as if they can only vote their own interest--and then call it the best we can do.

No... if we were behaving as if we were not free it would be of no concern to us whether our votes could lead to a just society or not. Furthermore, even as far as right action goes I am not convinced your standard for voting is appropriate in a structurally egalitarian society: it assumes that we can know, and are entitled to decide on, what is "right" for the circumstances of others. (I am not asserting relativism... merely the limits of our knowledge and empathy.) When we have no other options, when instead we live in a society dominated by inequality, it makes perfect sense to take on this responsibility: we have no other choice. But in an egalitarian society everyone has the capacity to speak for and defend their own interests... which they know better than we do.

As for "the best we can do," that is not what I said... though it may be the most we can safely expect people to actually do. We all have the capacity to avoid murder. That is no reason to have a society that cannot handle murderers.

The significance of politics is that it expands the scope of freedom. Within the scope of "right," there is only so much that I as an individual can do--there are limits to the extent to which I can legislate the best world, the world of moral reason, onto the world of cause and effect.

Because the environment in which individual moral decision-making takes place remains more or less beyond one's power?

It is this sort of political self that can, for instance, support reparations for slavery--an argument that has failed in every form in which the logic of interest has attempted to make it.

The politics of interest will always be limited in its capacity to rectify inequality, especially minority inequality... and here, because we must recognize this fact, we are obliged to act according to other standards.

1. Let me think, freedom of job, free press, speach, freedom of a secure life, freedom of civil liberites, I can go on for hours.

All of those can exist under communism.

2. Get this through your head, people make businesses to gain profit, they hire people to gain profit, they take money and give part of it to their workers. Got it? Now in communism, people make businesses, they hire workers, they surrender profits to government, making no money.

Actually, the people "make businesses", through democratic means.

That is what it means to have public ownership of the means of production: economic institutions are placed in the public sphere, such that we have the freedom to control them instead of having an exclusive class of owners controlling us.

Thus, in communism, you don't control economics, the government does.

Who is "you"?

Under capitalism the average person certainly doesn't control economics... he or she only controls what to buy and where to work, both of which are still perfectly free choices under communism.

3. Please tell me, how so?

Because the economic institutions that dominate our lives--the institutions we buy goods from and work for--are owned and controlled by others seeking their own private interests.

4. You entirely missed the point of the quote

Undoubtedly your point was something to the effect of "democracy is better than communism"... but since I'm a democratic communist (indeed, if you agree with Churchill, more of a democrat than you are), I used your quote for my own purposes instead.

5. Again, the bold text in Jefferson's quote was my target

See my response to (4).

Yes, if we accept coalitions as the determining factor of justness.But that is exactly what you are doing, not in theory but in praxis. Ultimately, you want to say that whatever notions of justice we can come up with, the only notions we can really "speak to" are those of our own self-interest. If that's the case, it's impossible ever actually to know that we live in a classless society at all.

But instead I have argued that coalitions only result in justice if the "actual power relations" themselves are just: if we have genuine political equality, and even more if we have classlessness.Political equality and classlessness are simply not enough. I know you think that if we just get to the anarcho-communist state that will in itself solve all of our political and economic problems, but you are ignoring among other things the simple logic of collective action: representing an interest in the public arena takes time, effort, resources... no matter what society you live in. Coalition politics depends not only on the existence of interests, but on the organized expression of interests. While there may not be class differences, it nevertheless remains true that on a logic of interest certain kinds of interests are more likely to be expressed than others. Certain kinds of interests are more likely to be expressed strongly than others. You cannot simply sweep this under the rug with words like "fairness" and "equality."

Some issues will only be raised by people seeking something other than their own interest. Are criminal's rights advocated by criminals? Not at all, certainly in this society--and, I think for many reasons, not in any society at all. Defendant's rights are represented primarily by people who expect never to be criminal defendants.

What about animal's rights? What about the environment? Believe it or not, precisely because environmental issues affect the most people the logic of interest suggests that they will be the least represented in public bodies.

Why? Because each of us has limited time and energy and resources to devote to activism, and we each have a utility function describing the costs and benefits of contributing to each cause. Environmental goods are inherently public, meaning that I reap the benefits of whatever activism occurs whether I contribute or not. Meanwhile, my efforts at any given time are nothing but a drop in the bucket, while more immediate concerns of mine--concerns which affect far fewer people--are such that my contributions pay off for me.

This is basic political economy. Look up Mancur Olson for the classic text on the subject, Garrett Hardin and Terry M. Moe for significant revisions.

The logic of interest, even in a purely "fair" politics, leaves some interests unattended or underattended.

Why not?That's simply the nature of the game. To put it simply, we don't all want the same benefit from government programs. The subsistence farmer might just as soon be left alone. Other people may feel similarly, and you're in no position to tell them they're wrong. Should we tax the Amish if they're plowing their own lands and schooling their own children? If we do, will we claim that the payouts are "equal" simply because if they did want something from us they'd have the same chance as everyone else to get it... even though we know in advance they are not likely to?

Fairness in taxation schemes simply cannot be as simple as "equal in, equal out." Not unless you have homogeneity of interests along with classlessness--something Marx advocated in arguing for the break-down of cities and an even distribution of population... but most theorists since then have thought this was Marx at his most fanciful and unrealistic.

But you know this from the outset... some of the money will be spent on what you want, and some on what you do not want.What if I don't want to be spending money at all? Why shouldn't the people who want things done be the ones to pay for them?

This is a popular problem in political economy. Some anarchists try to solve it by suggesting that public projects can be built through free association--precisely this principle, that those who want to pay are the ones to pay--but this, again, only works if you figure out how to overcome the free-rider problem, which is the fundamental problem of interest politics.

Your coalition theory incorrectly assumes that for every interest, there will be an organized group. Fifty years of research says otherwise, at least when people focus on self-interest.

There must be enough money to support the programs you want and to support the programs everyone else wants, otherwise yours might be shunted off to the side.I'm okay with that. I don't think the public should be buying things for us.

What now?

For the most part, our conflicting interests will not be over how much should be taken (because the loss and benefit is more or less equivalent) but rather over what it should be spent on (where we can form coalitions).You are assuming, for no good reason, that my only objection to taxation is that it is "too burdensome." But my complaint is not that it is burdensome (it is not about the cost), it is about the benefit: there is no reason to suppose that everyone wants something from the public coffer.

If we are all affected equally by taxation and all (more or less) equally desirous of government aid, it is much easier to form an arrangement that benefits all than if government concern for broad social good runs necessarily opposed to some people's interest.That's exactly right, but I admitted that as the special case: equal in, equal out. Equal in ("affected equally by taxation") is a reasonable assumption; equal out ("desirous of government aid") is more problematic.

It assumes that we can know, and are entitled to decide on, what is "right" for the circumstances of others.If we have any doubt, I'm sure we can ask them. I never said we shouldn't express our interests, I just said they shouldn't conclude our vote.

In other words, if I want to build a dog-park and other people want to build a school, I should be very interested in listening to their description of how badly they need a school, what good it will do for their local community, and so on. But my interest is still a park where I can walk my dogs. According to your model, I should cast my vote for dog-parks--though I might, if it serves my interest, join some coalition with the school-desirers. But only if it serves my interest.

On my model, I should be willing to say, "You know, after listening to the people who need a school I think their need is greater than mine. I know if my community needed a school I would think society should sacrifice dog-parks to schools, and I can't think any differently just because this school is theirs rather than mine."

In other words, I apply the strictures of Kant's categorical imperative or Rousseau's general will (in many ways the same), the basic criterion being generality.

Can I will as a general rule that society should prefer dog-parks to schools? No, even though I in my particular will prefer this dog-park to that school.

Okay guys, I split the thread (as I'm sure you can see) so let's try to stay on track in the original one. Some of Soheran and AnarchyeL's posts are pertinent to both subjects, and I didn't have time to read them all so I may have missed a few. Let me know, and I'll grab some of those posts and put them in here if someone points them out.

That aside, I think it's fairly telling that you guys have decided to attack Yootopia's (somewhat weaker) reasoning against Communism, while still largely ignoring about every word I've typed. The only worthwhile post I think I've found in this discussion was AnarchyeL's clarification regarding the New and Old Left and their legacies.

a "Stateless, Classless Society" (which doesn't and can't exist, by the way)

surely you must mean "can, does, and appears to be the default human mode of social organization", yes?

I've had four or five double-shot gin and tonics within the last four hours, but even as drunk as I am right now I can see how ridiculous this is. Pay close attention to the emphasis I'm about so put in here, as the emphasized portions seem to contradict each other.

Maybe you should have cut back a while ago, Melkor, cuz you're not making anysense about contradictions and "why classless society will not work". All we're getting from you is baseless assertions unbacked by either logic or evidence.

I'm going to spell this out for you again: A statless, classless society cannot work for humans with humans. The fact that a number of different ideologies happen to have varied ideas about how we get there is immaterial to my attacks on the idea of a stateless, classles society. As long as there is civilization and infrastructure on this planet, there will be States and Classes.

Yet you still don't answer the fundamental question of "Why?". You provide nothing but an assertion that civilization will inevitably lead to states and classes, and ignore both empirical evidence and logic to the contrary.

So, here we go. I'm going to make a list of all the classless societies I know, and then a list of all the classless, stateless societies I know.

Classless:
Aztec Empire
Sumeria c. 4000-3500 BC

Stateless, classless (not all are still in existence, obviously)
Moche
Iroquois and nearly all other Native American tribes
!Kung/San bushmen
New Guinea highlanders
Australian Aborigines
Inuit

Some of the above are quite complex. The New Guinea highlanders often incorporate modern technology into their social framework, yet they are stateless and classless, and still have order

Furthermore, you never refuted the example of the 1936 Spanish Revolution, which established a stateless, classless society over much of Catalonia, Andulia and Basque country in Spain, and lasted for a whole year. I would argue that if the idea was impossible, the organization wouldn't have persisted for a whole year.

Clinging to Marxism/Leninism would make them Old Left. They don't become New Left just because they may happen to have been born recently.

Our resident Poli Sci prof AnarchyEl already went over this distinction.

Everyone makes blanket statements about philosophies if they don't agree that its basic principles are possible or moral. Not believing in God doesn't make me "ignorant" of Islam or Judaism or Catholicism; likewise, not believing in the "classless, stateless society" doesn't make me ignorant about the idea or its roots.

I don't think that you understand that I'm saying that Communism and all its deviant ideologies are bullshit for the same reasons. That they have the same end but only vary on how they get there is what makes such a blanket generalization possible. The ends of these philosophies (to keep you with me here, I'm talking about the attainment of a "stateless, classsless society) are impossible; the means by which it is attempted are almost always immoral.

Once again, we go back to the baseless assertion of "stateless, classless society being impossible". Put up or shut up.

And here, you equate the methods of anarchists (which stress mass participation and popular revolution from below) with the methods of Marxist-Leninists, which varingly stress either crass parliamentary opportunism or conspiracy and coups.

I'm sure it does (or tires to). But if that's the case, who's going to get off their ass and make this Paradise happen? Eminent personalities are a part of life and you're never going to do away with them. Some people will always stand out in any society, be it for their physical properties, their personality, or whatever else. If you're going to be the least bit permissive with human behavior, circles will develop around certain people or groups. At what point do you disallow admiration for other individuals? At what point does anachro-communist theory step in and say "WOAH! You like that guy a little too much! ?"

And what do you do about it?

Guess what? We don't have any problem with eminent personalities. We hope to educate people to make their own decisions as much as possible, but so long as such eminent personalities don't try to make a institution of their power, there is no problem.

Organic societies delt with this issue in much the same way. The individuality of all preserved, and personalities are prevented from forming institutions of power.

I didn't say I didn't understand them, I said I dismissed them on the base principles that these ideologies share. I may not be as familiar with them as you are (but I can hardly be faulted for that), but again; it's the same principle by which I dismiss Monotheism by not believing in God. Since I don't believe that the idea of a "Classless, Stateless society" is moral or even possible, I don't agree with any of the Communists that might have different ideas about how to get there. Honestly, this is like the tenth time I've had to explain this.

Before you make blanket statements, you need to understand the difference between these varying ideologies, as well as provide a proof of why "classless, stateless society" is impossible.

It shouldn't be "Iron Fisted" but regrettably any such institution would by its very nature be repressive. Civilization is the concept of large groups of people living together in harmony. Since not all of us are rational all the time (we get drunk, we do stupid things occasionally, and--let's face it--some people like to mug and/or beat others) the idea of boundaries and rules is included within the notion of civilization. If we lived in a perfect world where no one ever tried to screw anyone else or steal/rape/murder them, I'd agree with you. Rules and their enforcement is a basic requirement to harmonious human existence. Without them, we'd be free to do whatever we wanted, and the results would soon speak for themselves.

Why can't decentralized groups organized by direct democracy also protect individuals? You provide no basis for why they can't, and indeed the evidence of organic society seems to suggest that stateless, classless societies have the lowest per capita crime. There is no reason why a community cannot make the rules and enforce them without resorting to empowering an institution with unchecked power.

Because every group has a leader, and if they don't, they have several smaller groups conspiring to be or decide the leader. Lock yourself in a room with ten other anachro-communists for six months and see what happens.

So what if people lead? So long as their influence is agreed upon voluntarily, and they have no coercive means to enforce their leadership, then their leadership does not equal rule.

Communism is the ignorant ideology that all people are perfect. Even if you try to argue it sounds beautiful in theory, I still wouldn't be happy with it. It leaves no opportunity for anyone to excel, and all it takes is enough people to slack off for me and everyone else who is honest to have to work ten times as hard just to get the same work done. In Communism, people who do nothing get as much as those who do everything. That's just idiocy.

I've had several Communists tell me that, "people who refuse to work will be eliminated". Eliminated? I don't want to live in a society like that.

Also, all it takes is one person to get a group going and break up this "perfect" little anarchy.

Too many stupid guys,say too many stupid things...

Noone knows what communism is,noone has read anything about it,and those whose accidentaly read a line,don't understand anything.

Let's start from the basics

Socialism/communism is

1)Collective ownership of means of production and planned economy
2)Democratic system,based on councils from the workers and the citizents
3)No army or police,but citizents forces
4)Everyone passing from burrocratic seats,so that noone becomes dominant

This doesn't need "good people" with "cristian goodness" but workers ready to take the political and economical power of the society and form them according to their needs.

Communism has nothing to do with corrupt dictatorships like Cuba,China,USSR,East Europe and so one.All this regimes are called "stalinist" and having nothing to do with socialism.

People cannot pass to communism directly,but have first to pass from socialism.Any questions???

Communism is the ignorant ideology that all people are perfect. Even if you try to argue it sounds beautiful in theory, I still wouldn't be happy with it. It leaves no opportunity for anyone to excel, and all it takes is enough people to slack off for me and everyone else who is honest to have to work ten times as hard just to get the same work done. In Communism, people who do nothing get as much as those who do everything. That's just idiocy.

I've had several Communists tell me that, "people who refuse to work will be eliminated". Eliminated? I don't want to live in a society like that.

Also, all it takes is one person to get a group going and break up this "perfect" little anarchy.

How old are you?Ten?If someone doesn't work in socialism he will be fired!Actually in capitalism people who don't do a thing get payed by all the others how work.That's how they get rich,you know...If someone told you that we should eliminate anyone who doesn't work they are just stupid.If someone doesn't work he won't get paid.Clear???

I will explain to you why many Americans feel communism is Bad.


Americans think communism is bad because they have been told to think it is bad.

They have been told that communism is intrinsically atheistic (of course, there ARE christian communist collectives in the US, but that is ignored), and that communists will stop them from worshipping god. The same kind of crap Republicans pulled before the last election, but their targets were Dems.

The have been told that communism is intrinsically authoritarian, ignoring all forms of anarcho-communism, or any other non-dictatorial models.

They have been told that communism is intrinsically slow, anti-technological and bankrupt. They have been told it is non-democratic. They have been told that it doesn't work.

They ignore the fact that a lot of American industry (power-generation, especially) is actually based on 'communistic' principles. How many people get their electricity through a 'co-operative', for example?

Communism is meant to result in a "Stateless, Classless Society"


No, it isn't.


(which doesn't and can't exist, by the way),


Because you say so?


but it relies on the abolition of private property


No, it doesn't.


and the strengthening of Party control over everyday life to attain this goal.


No, it doesn't.


The fundamental problem here is that to execute any social or economic policy on a national scale requires the existence of an entity to form and enforce rules.


Kind of true... this entity doesn't have to be external.


This is a blatant contradiction of Communism's own, stated aims.


No, it isn't.


Wow. You made a whole load of assertions about communism, and not a one was actually an essential characteristic of a communist society. The fact that your entire argument appears to be absed on those assumptions, makes your whole argument one big strawman fallacy.

Communism actually complies fully with nature. Individuals are not selfish by nature. They are naturally designed to help the species get better and better. The betterment of all is better than the betterment of one.

The have been told that communism is intrinsically authoritarian, ignoring all forms of anarcho-communism, or any other non-dictatorial models.

All of which have never functionally existed at all. Every communist state in history has been a tyranical, violent authoritarian state and has failed because of economic and military inefficiency.

They have been told that communism is intrinsically slow, anti-technological and bankrupt. They have been told it is non-democratic. They have been told that it doesn't work.

intrisically slow and anti-technology? I've never heard that before in my life. My Political Science course in HIGH SCHOOL discussed technology being a key part of Marx's concept of an evolving superstructure. Bankrupt? Well... Let's put it this way, the USSR went bankrupt, Cuba can't pay its doctors, and it took Reform and Opening for the Chinese economy to go anywhere.

Even a stopped clock can be right about something for the wrong reasons, to butcher the saying.

Marx's problem was twofold: the first problem was that he misunderstood the relationship between what he deemed the "superstructure" and "Base" in reality, the two interact, and cannot be rationally seperated or ignored. The second was that he ignored the fact that a technological advance was necessary for the evolution from Tribalism to Feudalism and from Feudalism to Democracy, and simply assumed that overthrowing the government would cause change. Thus, Marxist economic structures cannot support themselves, in part because of the inflexibility of central planning, and in part because of a shortage of materials.

That and he was a Romantic, and totally divorced from the inevetability of the state.

If you had a read even a single of Marxism you would know that Marx always underlined that socialism can be achieved in countries with developed economies(actually today we know how to do it in undeveloped economies too but not in 1917).Russia was a country in the dawn of capitalism whilst in the West they had hard industry.It's like compraring a country of the Third World(which is actually condemned by capitalism in poverty) with Sweden.

Cuba had an economy based in tourism and aggriculture and all the economic relations where with the USSR,when it broke down,it was obvious that Cuba would have economic problems too.Any country under an embargo would,no mater the type of economy.

China was in the end of feudalism,they didn't even have electricity when Mao took the power.It' like building a building without foundings.

If you had a read even a single of Marxism you would know that Marx always underlined that socialism can be achieved in countries with developed economies(actually today we know how to do it in undeveloped economies too but not in 1917).Russia was a country in the dawn of capitalism whilst in the West they had hard industry.It's like compraring a country of the Third World(which is actually condemned by capitalism in poverty) with Sweden.

And if you read my post, you would understand that my critiscism was of Marx's assumption that while Feudalism became Democracy through technological change, Democracy would become Communism through regime change.

China was in the end of feudalism,they didn't even have electricity when Mao took the power.It' like building a building without foundings.

And what did it take to end the feudal economy in China? Opening and Reform, the establishment of a free market. Did Mao's Great Leap Foward work? No, it led peasant's smelting their pots and pans in their back yard. It took Deng Xiaoping and Opening and Reform to bring successful mass-modernism to China, and Hong Kong was STILL more economically successful, before it rejoined mainland China.

All of which have never functionally existed at all. Every communist state in history has been a tyranical, violent authoritarian state and has failed because of economic and military inefficiency.

I'm not sure there's any truth to this.

Logically, if any communist 'state' (why state?) has not (yet) failed, your assertion about what happens to 'every communist state' becomes worth the paper it is written on. If that.

One could argue that Kerala and West Bengal veer towards communist states - since they have more communist party candidates elected than non-communists... yet I'm not sure tyrannical, violent or authoritarian are necessarily the words that would be used in an accurate description.

I'm not sure christian communist cooperatives in the US count as violent, authoritarian or tyrannical... but you seem intent that only 'states' should count, for some reason.


intrisically slow and anti-technology? I've never heard that before in my life. My Political Science course in HIGH SCHOOL discussed technology being a key part of Marx's concept of an evolving superstructure. Bankrupt? Well... Let's put it this way, the USSR went bankrupt, Cuba can't pay its doctors, and it took Reform and Opening for the Chinese economy to go anywhere.

Even a stopped clock can be right about something for the wrong reasons, to butcher the saying.

Marx's problem was twofold: the first problem was that he misunderstood the relationship between what he deemed the "superstructure" and "Base" in reality, the two interact, and cannot be rationally seperated or ignored. The second was that he ignored the fact that a technological advance was necessary for the evolution from Tribalism to Feudalism and from Feudalism to Democracy, and simply assumed that overthrowing the government would cause change. Thus, Marxist economic structures cannot support themselves, in part because of the inflexibility of central planning, and in part because of a shortage of materials.

That and he was a Romantic, and totally divorced from the inevetability of the state.

Marx isn't the be all and end all of communism. Could have saved you like half a page there, eh?

I'm not sure there's any truth to this.

Logically, if any communist 'state' (why state?) has not (yet) failed, your assertion about what happens to 'every communist state' becomes worth the paper it is written on. If that.

Comparitivism has few cases, yet manages suprising accuracy. And as to why states? I could use "Governments, regimes, and countries" if it makes you feel better. The State is the political totality of a country.

One could argue that Kerala and West Bengal veer towards communist states - since they have more communist party candidates elected than non-communists... yet I'm not sure tyrannical, violent or authoritarian are necessarily the words that would be used in an accurate description.

It is governmental form and regime structure that matter, not electoral results.

I'm not sure christian communist cooperatives in the US count as violent, authoritarian or tyrannical... but you seem intent that only 'states' should count, for some reason.

A commune of 20 nuts is not a governmental structure and is not worth studying from a comparitive point of view.

Marx isn't the be all and end all of communism. Could have saved you like half a page there, eh?

Could have saved me a lot more if I'd just read your previous posts and realized you were more likely to dodge than respond. To be blunt, I hear all about these other communists, but I have yet to see a communist state based on anything but Marxism or a variation thereof. Therefore, those other forms, while quaint, lack relevance.

That aside, I think it's fairly telling that you guys have decided to attack Yootopia's (somewhat weaker) reasoning against Communism, while still largely ignoring about every word I've typed.

What is this reasoning against Communism that we've ignored?

I haven't replied to every word you've said, no... but then, I don't reply to every word anyone says; usually it's much faster and easier, and no less productive, to isolate out the substantive parts and the parts actually at issue.

Could have saved me a lot more if I'd just read your previous posts and realized you were more likely to dodge than respond. To be blunt, I hear all about these other communists, but I have yet to see a communist state based on anything but Marxism or a variation thereof. Therefore, those other forms, while quaint, lack relevance.

Tell me, how is anarcho-communism a "variation of Marxism" when it explicitly rejects Marxian tactics, methods of organization and statist praxis?

Comparitivism has few cases, yet manages suprising accuracy. And as to why states? I could use "Governments, regimes, and countries" if it makes you feel better. The State is the political totality of a country.


And - the 'political totality of a country' is important?

I think you are being deliberately arbitrary. The US is a collection of 'states'... but I'm inclined to believe you'd argue that one communist state among 50 in the union, wouldn't be sufficient. I think you'd argue that ALL of the US has to be communist, or it 'doesnt' count'. Further - I think, if the entire US were communist, you'd be arguing it only counts if Canada is too... and then maybe Central and South America...

The irony is, of course, that communism doesn't necessitate nation-states anymore than capitalism does. Both can exist in micro and macrocosmic forms. A true anarcho-communism wouldn't necessarily have a 'state' identity at all....


It is governmental form and regime structure that matter, not electoral results.


Surely it is economic model that actually matters?


A commune of 20 nuts is not a governmental structure and is not worth studying from a comparitive point of view.


Christians are nuts? Or communists?

Your instant dismissal of opposition is symptomatic of exactly what I was taling about...


Could have saved me a lot more if I'd just read your previous posts and realized you were more likely to dodge than respond. To be blunt, I hear all about these other communists, but I have yet to see a communist state based on anything but Marxism or a variation thereof. Therefore, those other forms, while quaint, lack relevance.

I didn't dodge. You are convinced that communism=marxism. That's obviously wrong, but you seem intent on standing by that assertion. Thus - you are discussing a different topic to the one that I am discussing. You are discussing marxism, I am discussing communism.

Tell me, how is anarcho-communism a "variation of Marxism" when it explicitly rejects Marxian tactics, methods of organization and statist praxis?

Can you show me an anarcho-communist state that didn't collapse in 6 months or less? No? Hmm... Maybe that's because anarchist states must always return to conventional statehood because of the nature of the political culture of humanity?

Moreover, did you miss the whole "withering of the state" thing? All Anarcho-communists do is cut out the part of the setup where political culture was supposed to change.

Can you show me an anarcho-communist state that didn't collapse in 6 months or less? No? Hmm... Maybe that's because anarchist states must always return to conventional statehood because of the nature of the political culture of humanity?

Moreover, did you miss the whole "withering of the state" thing? All Anarcho-communists do is cut out the part of the setup where political culture was supposed to change.

Once could argue that the Zapatista movement constitutes a kind of anarcho-communist state... which would be an example of "an anarcho-communist state that didn't collapse in 6 months or less"... indeed, the movement has been public for almost 14 years.

And - the 'political totality of a country' is important?

When studying government and political structure? I should rather think so.

I think you are being deliberately arbitrary. The US is a collection of 'states'... but I'm inclined to believe you'd argue that one communist state among 50 in the union, wouldn't be sufficient. I think you'd argue that ALL of the US has to be communist, or it 'doesnt' count'. Further - I think, if the entire US were communist, you'd be arguing it only counts if Canada is too... and then maybe Central and South America...

... ... ... ...

Um... Dear, we need to talk about the definition of state. I didn't mean state in the sense of Alabama or Georgia, I meant state as in The United Kingdom or Germany.

The irony is, of course, that communism doesn't necessitate nation-states anymore than capitalism does. Both can exist in micro and macrocosmic forms. A true anarcho-communism wouldn't necessarily have a 'state' identity at all....

I don't see any anarcho-communist countries here.

Surely it is economic model that actually matters?

Not precisely. In reality, when we talk about communism, we talk about the political AND economic model. If it were purely economic, and the state were divorced from the model, it would be irrelevant to a discussion of communism, which is a political and economic model.

Christians are nuts? Or communists?

Rather, Christian Communists living in a commune are nuts.

Your instant dismissal of opposition is symptomatic of exactly what I was taling about...

I noted the reasoning beyond that, but you chose to dodge it completely.

I didn't dodge. You are convinced that communism=marxism. That's obviously wrong, but you seem intent on standing by that assertion. Thus - you are discussing a different topic to the one that I am discussing. You are discussing marxism, I am discussing communism.

And you dodge again: show me a communist state not based off of Marxist principals.

If that's the case, it's impossible ever actually to know that we live in a classless society at all.

Why?

What about animal's rights?

Or immigrants' rights? Or trade policy? Or war? Or children's rights? Or the rights of the mentally disabled? Or policy on matters like global warming, with effects far beyond the scope of the voting public?

I quite agree that my model cannot handle these problems, nor any policy decisions that substantially affect people who are not full citizens with equal political rights, and the resources to express them. It is in these cases that I would agree with you that people should vote based on the broad public interest... at least insofar as it involves taking the freedom and welfare of those non-full citizens into consideration.

Moreover, because I do not believe that people can be relied upon to vote that way, or even that the people who vote that way will necessarily get answers that fully respect the freedom and welfare of others, I further argue that as regards those policies the duty to obey the law is somewhat muted: because structural inequality denies genuine impartiality and non-exclusivity, it is difficult to see why any non-citizen should be morally obliged to obey that which she has no reason to assume is just, and it is difficult to see why any citizen should be denied the capability to engage in civil disobedience against policies she also has no reason to assume are just.

The logic of interest, even in a purely "fair" politics, leaves some interests unattended or underattended.

You've convinced me of half the point: we are never likely to arrive at a state of society "perfect" enough to justify removing any substantial element of broad concern from our voting.

But on grounds of human nature and human freedom, I think there is good reason to minimize this territory.

What if I don't want to be spending money at all? Why shouldn't the people who want things done be the ones to pay for them?

While you're right that this problem isn't going to disappear whatever system of political and economic organization we have, it's worth noting that at least some of it is, actually, bound up with class society.

Resources like free public schools and free public health care are always likely to be more beneficial to the poor, who cannot afford decent private alternatives, than to the rich, who can.

On my model, I should be willing to say, "You know, after listening to the people who need a school I think their need is greater than mine. I know if my community needed a school I would think society should sacrifice dog-parks to schools, and I can't think any differently just because this school is theirs rather than mine."

Yes, the case of schools vs. dog parks is pretty clear-cut.

But to use your earlier example, what about the bridge? Surely there are other things the money can be spend on... and the fact that I'm constructing a general rule doesn't exclude them from consideration. I may well conclude that bridges should not, in fact, be built to islands with small numbers of people, as long as there is a ferry... and in good faith I may believe that I would be willing to accept such a rule.

But it is not me who has to live with this decision, it is them... and it is them who actually know what it is like to live with this decision, not me. I can listen to them all I want, but that hardly means that I can achieve perfect understanding--it does not bridge the gap between the hypothetical me who I believe would be willing to accept such a rule and the actual me who actually would.

Edit: If we chose a thousand people to make all the decisions from one economic class, or one social demographic, or one geographic area, and they all made a good faith effort to choose what is best for all, do you really think they would do a good job?

If not, why is it any different when we task everyone else with judging what is right in the case of some?

If so, why bother with democracy at all?

When studying government and political structure? I should rather think so.


Why? Does government not exist at any level except those defined by the borders of nations? (I wonder how one deals with autonomous regions, then...)


Um... Dear, we need to talk about the definition of state. I didn't mean state in the sense of Alabama or Georgia, I meant state as in The United Kingdom or Germany.


Silly me. Imagine me not realising which specific definition you 'obviously' meant. After all, Dictionary.com (for example) only lists 22 different possible definitions - 14 of them nouns.

If you can't manage to be clear - that's hardly my failing.


I don't see any anarcho-communist countries here.


You wouldn't, would you. Nice eyepatch.


Not precisely. In reality, when we talk about communism, we talk about the political AND economic model. If it were purely economic, and the state were divorced from the model, it would be irrelevant to a discussion of communism, which is a political and economic model.


You talk about that. And that's the problem. You aren't talking about communism.


Rather, Christian Communists living in a commune are nuts.


Obviously. Why was that again?


I noted the reasoning beyond that, but you chose to dodge it completely.


No, you really didn't. You invented some hogwash about small communities not counting as 'government', or something, and suggested that you can gain no value of of them as comparisons.

None of which explains why they are 'nuts'. Or why we should accept your arbitrary definitions of what 'counts' as 'government'.


And you dodge again: show me a communist state not based off of Marxist principals.

Not a dodge. You are talking about one thing. I am pointing out you are not talking about the same thing as me, and you are saying "well, show me an example of the irrelevent topic I want to dscuss".

And if you read my post, you would understand that my critiscism was of Marx's assumption that while Feudalism became Democracy through technological change, Democracy would become Communism through regime change.

First, Marx spoke of capitalism, not democracy... he did not advocate democracy's overthrow, quite the opposite.

Second, Marx is very explicit in saying that different modes of economic organization depend upon technological change (or at least broad social and economic development), and communism is no exception. In truth, you are confusing two different kinds of "cause": the actual transition from capitalism to socialism is a matter of regime change (as, indeed, was at least sometimes the case in the transition from feudalism to capitalism, at least advanced capitalism), but the root of it, the reason it is inevitable, is not the simple fact of regime change but the manner in which capitalist economic development (allegedly) leads to periodic worsening crises.

Can you show me an anarcho-communist state that didn't collapse in 6 months or less? No? Hmm... Maybe that's because anarchist states must always return to conventional statehood because of the nature of the political culture of humanity?

Moreover, did you miss the whole "withering of the state" thing? All Anarcho-communists do is cut out the part of the setup where political culture was supposed to change.

First of all an "anarchist state" is a contradiction in terms. Secondly, the case that that I've been harping on for this whole thread--The Spanish Revolution, successfully created an anarchist society that involved three million participants. And it lasted for almost a year, and was only put to an end because it was outnumbered and outgunned, with both the fascists and the Communists in the Spanish Republic concentrating their efforts in wiping out the anarchist militias. They had to be brought kicking and screaming back to the old statist, bourgeois social order.

What anarchists cut out is the entire statist praxis of a "dictatorship of the proletariat", which involves the centralization of economic control in the hands of the state in order to "revolutionize production" to pave the way for the future communist society.

We argue that such an event could end in nothing less then disaster. Furthermore, we don't reject a transitional period either. For the most part, we feel that an anarcho-collectivist society must be established before an anarcho-communist society. From renumeration according to labor we move into renumeration according to effort, and finally renumeration according to needs, which is intrinsic to a communist society.

Why? Does government not exist at any level except those defined by the borders of nations? (I wonder how one deals with autonomous regions, then...)

The state also includes subsets of the state... You're being purposefully obtuse.


If you can't manage to be clear - that's hardly my failing.

I should think that, in a discussion of the political system of countries, the use of 'state' should be crystal clear.



You wouldn't, would you. Nice eyepatch.

It's rather hard to see what isn't here.



You talk about that. And that's the problem. You aren't talking about communism.

Yes, I am. If a governing body is not involved in the equal sharing of resources, and the economy does it on its own, what you either have is charity or an amazingly advanced lasseize faire economy in which resources have become so plentiful that there is no appreciable difference in resource accumulation across the totality of society. Neither has a thing to do with communism.

No, you really didn't. You invented some hogwash about small communities not counting as 'government', or something, and suggested that you can gain no value of of them as comparisons.

Small, a-governmental communes aren't governmental. Gee golly gosh, Batman, that's really hard to grasp!

None of which explains why they are 'nuts'. Or why we should accept your arbitrary definitions of what 'counts' as 'government'.

I would love to be the person so clever as to think up the terms of modern political science, but I'm afraid that that credit belongs to a long and distinguished line of thinkers of whom I am not one.

Not a dodge. You are talking about one thing. I am pointing out you are not talking about the same thing as me, and you are saying "well, show me an example of the irrelevent topic I want to dscuss".

No, we're talking about the same thing, the problem is that you want to bring things that don't exist in as evidence.

First of all an "anarchist state" is a contradiction in terms. Secondly, the case that that I've been harping on for this whole thread--The Spanish Revolution, successfully created an anarchist society that involved three million participants. And it lasted for almost a year, and was only put to an end because it was outnumbered and outgunned, with both the fascists and the Communists in the Spanish Republic concentrating their efforts in wiping out the anarchist militias. They had to be brought kicking and screaming back to the old statist, bourgeois social order.

1. For lack of a better term, I used state. I suppose that para-statal entity might be more accurate, but the distinction is mostly semantic.

2. Hmm... Methinks someone has read a very selective account of the Spanish Revolution. Nevertheless, my point about the conclusion of anarchy, that is to say, it's inevitable return to statehood, stands.

What anarchists cut out is the entire statist praxis of a "dictatorship of the proletariat", which involves the centralization of economic control in the hands of the state in order to "revolutionize production" to pave the way for the future communist society.

The problem is that you misunderstand is that the dictatorship of the proletariat does not exist to merely centralize the economy, it also exists to change the political culture. The state does not wither because the economy is centralized, it withers because the political culture has conformed to the communist model.

We argue that such an event could end in nothing less then disaster. Furthermore, we don't reject a transitional period either. For the most part, we feel that an anarcho-collectivist society must be established before an anarcho-communist society. From renumeration according to labor we move into renumeration according to effort, and finally renumeration according to needs, which is intrinsic to a communist society.

I assume you mean remuneration, no?

And the distinction between labor and effort escapes me.

1. For lack of a better term, I used state. I suppose that para-statal entity might be more accurate, but the distinction is mostly semantic.

2. Hmm... Methinks someone has read a very selective account of the Spanish Revolution. Nevertheless, my point about the conclusion of anarchy, that is to say, it's inevitable return to statehood, stands.

1. The word "society" would work

2. How does you point still stand? Unless you claim is that states won't tolerate the existence of a stateless society, then your claim that a stateless society will collapse even without outside interference is not supported.

The problem is that you misunderstand is that the dictatorship of the proletariat does not exist to merely centralize the economy, it also exists to change the political culture. The state does not wither because the economy is centralized, it withers because the political culture has conformed to the communist model.

That's a straight up Marxian interpretation of the issue. Anarchists reject the "dictatorship of the proletariat" because we argue that a change of "political culture" does not require state interference, and we reject the implicit authoritarianism of state control of the economy.

I assume you mean remuneration, no?

And the distinction between labor and effort escapes me.

Effort is how hard you tried, labor is how work you got done. As effort increases, labor tends to increase, but each individual's ability to labor is not equal. Certain genetic differences mean that renumeration according to labor will result in an inefficient incentive to work. If you incentivize effort instead, you can simultaneously foster solidarity and increase economic efficiency.

As effort increases, labor tends to increase, but each individual's ability to labor is not equal.

How do you measure "effort"?

The state also includes subsets of the state... You're being purposefully obtuse.


No, you are being arbitrary and vague. Government is not something that only exists at the nation-state level. In the US, for example, we have a nation-state government, and a number of non-nation-state governments, and then increasingly smaller governments, some of which govern only a few hundreds of people, or less.

Your terms are arbitrary. I reject them them as inaccurate and kind of irrelevent.


I should think that, in a discussion of the political system of countries, the use of 'state' should be crystal clear.


Then you think wrong. The discussion isn't as clearly delineated as "the political system of countries". Indeed, communism is the topic of the debate, and isn't actually a 'political system' at all, countrywide, or otherwise. Even if you were correct on that (pivotal) matter (which you're not), there is no reason to assume the focus of the debate must centre on 'nation-sized-government... except that you (apparently) wish it to be so.

All that aside - the UK could be argued as 'a state', and is about the gepgraphical equivalent of... say... the US state of Georgia. I see no reason why I should have known what you mean by 'state' when you singularly failed to be clear on the matter. I'm not even sure you're clear on the matter now.



It's rather hard to see what isn't here.


You said it.


Yes, I am. If a governing body is not involved in the equal sharing of resources, and the economy does it on its own, what you either have is charity or an amazingly advanced lasseize faire economy in which resources have become so plentiful that there is no appreciable difference in resource accumulation across the totality of society. Neither has a thing to do with communism.


Any idea what you are talking about? It would be nice if I could believe one of the two of us did... communism is pretty straightforward - it is an economic model. How that economic model is governed is open to speculation, there is no hard and fast acidtest that must be applied. You really don't seem to know what communism 'is'.


Small, a-governmental communes aren't governmental. Gee golly gosh, Batman, that's really hard to grasp!


Apparently so. A small commune that governs itself is something that could count as a government. Even if the 'government' is entirely internal. You could say that the 'government' of a rational anarchy is everyone.


I would love to be the person so clever as to think up the terms of modern political science, but I'm afraid that that credit belongs to a long and distinguished line of thinkers of whom I am not one.


You said it.


No, we're talking about the same thing, the problem is that you want to bring things that don't exist in as evidence.

You could argue that the Zapatista movement is as true to the spirit of a pure communo-anarchism, as the former USSR was to a pure Marxist-communism. A 'pure' communism has never existed... much like a 'pure' capitalism. By your logic, we can't discuss anything.

Since, the debate keeps seems to be coming back to what communism is I offer the following solution.

"Communism is an {political} ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production."

For offering that definition on what communism is and providing further help for those who would like to take the time to learn a little more about communism, I'd liked to thank wikipedia. :)

Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) and for comparison Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)

For additional comparison here's two other sources that say the exact same thing.

Communism2 (http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/communism/) and Capitalism2 (http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/capitalism/)

If, I can be of any further help, please just let me know. ;)

Okay, as usual for this discussion, we're going nowhere fast. My oppoents are (again) leaving out my main ideas in their responses, and every "rebuttal" I get is usually a varying iteration of this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13191467&postcount=62), which I thought was a joke at first.

I have been repeatedly challenged to explain why a Classless, Stateless society can't exist when the onus of proof isn't on me, it's on you. If we were currently (any of us) living in such a society, said onus would surely rest with myself, but we don't and it doesn't. If you are trying to tell me that this can work you need to explain how. If you ever take a debate class or attend law school, this will be one of the first things they'll tell you.

Even though the onus is not on me, I can go ahead and say that classes are inevitable because people seem to have some strange tendancy to want to follow other people. They seek out eminent persons or philosophies and follow them because it gives them purpose (or they think it does). These people and these ideas remind us that excellence is within humanity's grasp and not some "otherworldly" concept. States, on the other hand, arise from a desire for order and security, which is of paramount importance to most. They don't occur naturally, but even animals have rudimentary social classes so it's preposterous for someone like Free Soviets (who never ceases to amuse me) to claim that a classless society is the "default mode" of human existence.

Let's sum it up again since I'm sure you missed it the first time: The existence of classes follows naturally from mankind's tendancy to identify and categorize things--even animals have social classes. The existence of the state does not arise naturally, but rather because people will eventually want to protect themselves from other people.

Look guys, I'm not a big fan of the State either, and arguing in favor of it leaves a bad taste in my mouth since there isn't a government on the planet that I wouldn't make about 99% smaller. But you can't just sit here and yammer away about how cool it would be if everyone were equal (which they should be under the law, but are almost never equal in nature) without telling me how you would possibly maintain order and security in such an environment. Without a "repressive" entity to watch the proverbial house, there would be no consequences for crime.

Honestly, the idea of a "classless, stateless society" is tantamount to hurling us back into prehistory. And that it "worked" (whatever) for a whole year (!) in a few cities in Spain does not make it any more viable or morally correct than other systems that "worked" for brief periods of time. When I say something will not work, that doesn't necessarily mean that any attempt to do so shuts down on itself automatically. National Socialism didn't "work," but Hitler ran it for 12 years. Soviet-style Communism didn't "work" but they held onto it for seventy years. Is that proof that those ideas were a solid foundation for society? Of course not. When I say something won't work, what I mean to say is that in an environment where it is attempted, the citizens will invariably be worse off than they would be under almost any other conceivable government. For all the bitching people do about Capitalism "creating" poverty and hunger (Capitalism doesn't create those things, living on a planet that doesn't have infinite resources does), neither is a major problem in this country; and our citizens are by and large far better off than their counterparts overseas in any direction. Why fix something that's not broken? Even if this did "work" in a handful of instances, what evidence is there that Anachro-Communism can work for 300 million (or, hell, 6 billion) people in an industrialized society? Did it ever occur to Trot that none of his examples were of modern, industrialized men?

The ball is in your court and it has been for some time. If I see more of this single-sentence bullshit about "you're not explaining yourself!" when I'm writing goddamn books for you people, I will flog you with a horse whip.

You're assuming that classes are intrinsic to human nature. We've bent overbackwards giving you reasons why that is not the case.

Here's another: in nearly all known anthropological cases, a state society developed before a class society. In most cases, it took many generations, perhaps even centuries for oppressive autocracies to wrest control of economics from classless, cooperative organs like clans, and into the hands of either the state or private owners.

You provide no reasons why a democratically organized populace can't police itself without resorting to creating an institution with the monopoly on the legitimate use of force. We've provided you with a clear reason why that is possible. The vast majority of people obey laws not cuz they fear punishment but because people are genetically programmed to engage in reciprocally altruistic behavior. People overwhelmingly are not capricious in their self-interest, and will often go great lengths to punish those who are.

Finally, you giving us an unreasonable standard to prove why anarchism will work. Quite frankly, 150 years is not a long time, especially given the fact that there has only ever been one anarchist revolution, the 1936 Spanish Revolution. A partial success is pretty good given the odds of being outnumbered by hostile forces of Western democracies, the Spanish Republicans and Communists and the Fascists. The very idea of the democratic republic failed many times before it succeeded. It failed with the peasant's revolts of 1300s in England. It failed again under Cromwell in the 1600s. It didn't succeed (and only partially) until the American revolution. And it didn't become widespread for a full century later. Did that mean the demcratic republic and capitalism was impossible? Of course not.

The birthing pains with any new society are long and hard, but one thing seems to be certain: so long as people yearn for freedom, they will make their vision of the free society work as best as they can.

I have been repeatedly challenged to explain why a Classless, Stateless society can't exist when the onus of proof isn't on me, it's on you. If we were currently (any of us) living in such a society, said onus would surely rest with myself, but we don't and it doesn't.

If "we were currently... living in any such society," we wouldn't be arguing about whether or not a classless, stateless society can exist... we would have the proof right in front of us.

If you are trying to tell me that this can work you need to explain how.

Yes and no.

If we want to advance the argument, we can't just say "stateless and classless"... we have to actually say something about what such a society would look like.

But then, as you'll note from the OP, not only was this discussion started by an attack on communism (meaning that we are not suddenly making the argument out of the blue but instead responding to objections that our opponents brought up on their own) any such "onus" on us is minimized... and more importantly from the perspective of being productive, I highly doubt that you do not have at least a basic understanding of what communists mean when we say "stateless and classless."

If you don't, and for anyone else who doesn't: generally communists advocate public ownership of the means of production, allowing for a relatively egalitarian distribution of their product (classless), and political organization that is direct and coexistent with the public, instead of having a political class of rulers (stateless.)

Since the latter point is a matter of contention, consider the difference between a group of people directly ruling themselves, meeting as a body periodically to make laws, and a group of people who instead as legislated to by others in a centralized, hierarchical political system. Most of us are not complete direct democrats--it makes no sense to have the public deal with every little matter before anything can be done--but the key point is that power flows from decentralized, more or less autonomous public assemblies upward instead of from some supreme state body downward.

I cannot, of course, respond pre-emptively to every objection imaginable to this framework... I cannot, that is, explain why every reason anyone might conceivably give as to why it wouldn't work is a bad reason, because I can never list every such reason. That's why, even if I had started a thread on why you should all become communists (instead of just responding to already-stated objections to communism), it would still be necessary to actually have a discussion... it isn't as if I could prove you all wrong in the OP.

Even though the onus is not on me, I can go ahead and say that classes are inevitable because people seem to have some strange tendancy to want to follow other people. They seek out eminent persons or philosophies and follow them because it gives them purpose (or they think it does).

Do they?

"Philosophies," maybe... though even then I'm not sure the generalization is valid. "Eminent persons", maybe the occasional particularly charismatic or inspiring figure, but I don't see most human beings truly "follow" anyone... though we might listen to people we respect at times.

More to the point, as long as this "follow" is voluntary, as long as it stems from the esteem of others rather than from the individual's [i]power, it is not truly a class system that has ensued. This may seem to be a distinction without a difference, but in fact it is crucial: the person who is followed cannot demand obedience, he or she can only request it, and that means that if his or her commands are unreasonable or unjust, his or her followers always retain the capability to refuse.

Can people be swayed by particularly charismatic people who lead them to do what is not reasonable or just? Yes, but this is a problem with virtually every political system; I hardly see how anarchist communism is particularly prone to it.

States, on the other hand, arise from a desire for order and security, which is of paramount importance to most.

This would only be true if it were the case that states, as opposed to other types of political organization, are the only way to provide "order and security."

They don't occur naturally, but even animals have rudimentary social classes so it's preposterous for someone like Free Soviets (who never ceases to amuse me) to claim that a classless society is the "default mode" of human existence.

No, that doesn't make it "preposterous" at all.

It does not follow from "Some animals have rudimentary social classes" to "Human beings naturally have social classes." All you have shown, if we accept your assertion, is that class can sometimes be natural--not that it necessarily is the case as regards humans.

Of course, we need not keep this on the level of the hypothetical... there have actually been "natural human societies", after all, and they do seem to have been for the most part classless (and, obviously, stateless.)

Let's sum it up again since I'm sure you missed it the first time: [u]The existence of classes follows naturally from mankind's tendancy to identify and categorize things--even animals have social classes.

I have brown hair. That means I fall into the category of brown-haired people.

I support anarchism. That means I fall into the category of anarchists.

I love Tetris. That means I fall into the category of Tetris-lovers.

Please tell me at what point these categories meaningfully resemble true "classes" in the political or economic sense.

without telling me how you would possibly maintain order and security in such an environment.

All the means presently available to us today are still available to us without a class of rulers. Of course, most anarchists also advocate significant revisions in methods of law enforcement, particularly as regards the people tasked with enforcing the rules, but this is not necessarily essential to the concept.

We also tend to argue that with the demise of class society many of the issues that lead to the necessity of enforcing "order and security" will be minimized. This is the crucial aspect, for what it's worth, in the Marxist notion of the state "withering away": when we have reached the point where there is no more class division, when the last elements of the capitalist order have been abolished, there is no more ruling class needing to use the repressive organs of the state to keep the other class (or classes) down.

Honestly, the idea of a "classless, stateless society" is tantamount to hurling us back into prehistory.

But this in itself is a crucial concession, is it not?

If a classless, stateless society is "hurling us back into prehistory", then you must grant, as Free Soviets has said, that it is the "default" mode of human existence, prior to the artificial modifications that have come since.

When I say something will not work, that doesn't necessarily mean that any attempt to do so shuts down on itself automatically.

No, but at least in the case of anarchism many people seem to think that it would immediately result in a complete breakdown in social order, not that it would slowly decay in other ways.

For all the bitching people do about Capitalism "creating" poverty and hunger (Capitalism doesn't create those things, living on a planet that doesn't have infinite resources does)

While it might be a stretch to argue that capitalism "creates" poverty and hunger, the simple fact of scarcity creates neither--at least not at this point in economic development. It is the distribution of these scarce resources that does.

neither is a major problem in this country;

Ideally, neither would be any kind of problem at all in any country.

Even if I were to grant that the current social order is good, that does not mean that I need conclude it is best.

and our citizens are by and large far better off than their counterparts overseas in any direction.

By what standard?

Why fix something that's not broken?

So you support the status quo? Really? ;)

Even if this did "work" in a handful of instances, what evidence is there that Anachro-Communism can work for 300 million (or, hell, 6 [i]billion) people in an industrialized society?

On the long term? Very little empirical evidence, because we have never had such a society. But this does not preclude the possibility, nor does it even necessarily contest the attempt: not only need not we accept the anarcho-communist model in full all of a sudden (indeed, as a matter of practical fact we won't), but even if we did there would be nothing stopping us from altering the rules or even making a full-out reversal of course and returning to capitalism.

Did it ever occur to Trot that none of his examples were of modern, industrialized men?

Since you were contesting the possibility of stateless and classless societies at any level of economic development, his examples were perfectly pertinent... though I'm sure he's aware, as are the rest of us, that neither modern industrialized men nor modern industrialized women have lived for the long term in an anarcho-communist society.

The question is how this fact is explained, and there is at least one very plausible explanation without any need to accept that a stateless, classless industrial society would decay or collapse: there are very powerful people with an interest in seeing that it does not happen. (Why are they around now and not before? Because in "modern" society class structures are easier to maintain, among other reasons because powerful, well-organized states exist to maintain them.) This is one of many reasons that it is unwise to conclude "it can't happen" from "it hasn't happened yet": it constitutes, in effect, assuming the rightness of currently-existing power relations by accepting the dictates they have made for the world.

If there were a large number of successful attempts--by which I mean attempts that got off the ground, that actually managed to follow the prescriptions on a substantial scale--that proceeded to collapse due to internal problems, your explanation would make more sense than mine... but instead we have very few attempts "successful" in that sense, and they have all been crushed by external forces before any long-term judgment on their viability could be made. (Which, if anything, better fits my explanation, not yours.)

If I see more of this single-sentence bullshit about "you're not explaining yourself!" when I'm writing goddamn books for you people

Books of unsupported assertions do not constitute explanation any more than paragraphs or sentences of unsupported assertions do.

It is the absolute opposite of Humanity, Individuality, and Sentience.


When you start equating humanity and sentience with individuality (or rather individualism, because you blur the two), you know you're on the wrong track.


It states that nothing should be privatized, everything should be public property. In a communist society, you do not own your body, the state does.


Rubbish. Complete non sequitur.


All living things are by nature selfish, it would be absolutely impossible for them to survive otherwise. selfishness is doing something for your own gain, for yourself, or for how something makes you feel. Communism goes against this idea in the fact that it believes forced altruism is the ultimate ideal, but you cannot force someone to be giving, it simply creates envy, angst, and feelings of being cheated, and in many ways it is cheating people out of their just earned rewards.


Your understanding of communism is abysmal.

I've said it time and time again, and I'll say it again now. You are limited by your lack of knowledge of any type of society beyond the Western "norm"; your ignorance prevents you from contemplating any feasible alternative, and leads you to spouting downright nonsense.

There have been, and there are, many societies based on the principle of mutual giving and mutual assistance - reciprocity as the founding principle. Go to rural communities in Papua New Guinea today, for example, and you'll find it works out just fine.


It should never be forced upon other people to help their neighbor, and that neighbor should never expect it from others.


Why not? As I said, it works for Papuans. Also, you're deliberately distorting the principle. You make it sound like a one-way flow: one side giving, the other taking, with no reciprocity. Are you doing that out of ignorance, or out of deliberate hypocrisy?


When a society puts together everything they have after working and everyone gets an equal slice of the pie, it destroys any incentive for working.


Sorry, but you've been proved wrong. Go to Tokelau, go to Melanesian societies, and you'll find that everyone does work, and shares freely. The entire system in Tokelau is founded on that exact principle: everyone receives an equal share. In exchange -and that is the crucial point you keep trying to stifle- everyone contributes.

I'm guessing you were genuinely ignorant, and not deliberately so. I hope I've helped set your misconceptions straight.

I have been repeatedly challenged to explain why a Classless, Stateless society can't exist when the onus of proof isn't on me, it's on you.

Are you going to conveniently ignore my earlier post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13187706&postcount=36), then?

Okay, as usual for this discussion, we're going nowhere fast. My oppoents are (again) leaving out my main ideas in their responses, and every "rebuttal" I get is usually a varying iteration of this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13191467&postcount=62), which I thought was a joke at first.

I have been repeatedly challenged to explain why a Classless, Stateless society can't exist when the onus of proof isn't on me, it's on you. If we were currently (any of us) living in such a society, said onus would surely rest with myself, but we don't and it doesn't. If you are trying to tell me that this can work you need to explain how. If you ever take a debate class or attend law school, this will be one of the first things they'll tell you.

Even though the onus is not on me, I can go ahead and say that classes are inevitable because people seem to have some strange tendancy to want to follow other people. They seek out eminent persons or philosophies and follow them because it gives them purpose (or they think it does). These people and these ideas remind us that excellence is within humanity's grasp and not some "otherworldly" concept. States, on the other hand, arise from a desire for order and security, which is of paramount importance to most. They don't occur naturally, but even animals have rudimentary social classes so it's preposterous for someone like Free Soviets (who never ceases to amuse me) to claim that a classless society is the "default mode" of human existence.

Let's sum it up again since I'm sure you missed it the first time: The existence of classes follows naturally from mankind's tendancy to identify and categorize things--even animals have social classes. The existence of the state does not arise naturally, but rather because people will eventually want to protect themselves from other people.

Look guys, I'm not a big fan of the State either, and arguing in favor of it leaves a bad taste in my mouth since there isn't a government on the planet that I wouldn't make about 99% smaller. But you can't just sit here and yammer away about how cool it would be if everyone were equal (which they should be under the law, but are almost never equal in nature) without telling me how you would possibly maintain order and security in such an environment. Without a "repressive" entity to watch the proverbial house, there would be no consequences for crime.

Honestly, the idea of a "classless, stateless society" is tantamount to hurling us back into prehistory. And that it "worked" (whatever) for a whole year (!) in a few cities in Spain does not make it any more viable or morally correct than other systems that "worked" for brief periods of time. When I say something will not work, that doesn't necessarily mean that any attempt to do so shuts down on itself automatically. National Socialism didn't "work," but Hitler ran it for 12 years. Soviet-style Communism didn't "work" but they held onto it for seventy years. Is that proof that those ideas were a solid foundation for society? Of course not. When I say something won't work, what I mean to say is that in an environment where it is attempted, the citizens will invariably be worse off than they would be under almost any other conceivable government. For all the bitching people do about Capitalism "creating" poverty and hunger (Capitalism doesn't create those things, living on a planet that doesn't have infinite resources does), neither is a major problem in this country; and our citizens are by and large far better off than their counterparts overseas in any direction. Why fix something that's not broken? Even if this did "work" in a handful of instances, what evidence is there that Anachro-Communism can work for 300 million (or, hell, 6 billion) people in an industrialized society? Did it ever occur to Trot that none of his examples were of modern, industrialized men?

The ball is in your court and it has been for some time. If I see more of this single-sentence bullshit about "you're not explaining yourself!" when I'm writing goddamn books for you people, I will flog you with a horse whip.

First: A classless society is no more essential to communism than a dictatorship is - unless you limit your understanding of communism to Marx and Mao. Communism is an economic model, whereby the means of production is in the hands of those doing the producing... and that can be classless or not.

Second: human nature arguments are a problem. Fundamentally, the most primitive governments have always been some kind of direct despotism. When things break down, despotism is the model that always fills the gap till something else can be built. Most governments (especially new ones) quickly or eventually fall back into despotism.

This means - human societies always tend towards absolute authoritarianism.

So - by the logic that says society can't be classless - society cannot be anything but dictatorship.

Here's the thing, though - we prop-up our little republics, democracies, constitutional monarchies, etc. We make them work for a while, by sheer determination.

It's a paradigm shift, that's all. No model is stable or unstable, but thinking makes it so.

Third: the fundamental leg on which anarchism must stand as a society (anarchism is easy for individuals) is direct democracy. A functional direct democracy would be a good logical argument for the possibility of stable anarchy - and there is a good historical precedent - the 'wapentak'. Wapentak is nothing more than a show of hands, but it is also more than that - it is a pledge. The obvious example is martial - if you raise your hand to go to war, you WILL fight - but it applies across the board. We know it works (historically)and all it requires is direct participation.

So - we can have communism with or without class, with or without anarchism. We can have classless society is we choose to make it so, and we can have anarchy that still governs itself.


The biggest problem to the success of communism has always been interference. It is a concept that has constantly been interfered with, undermined and even warred upon. Look at India, where the CIA have been fairly open (recently) about their interference with duly elected Marxist candidates.

Capitalists talk about baby not being able to stand up, whilst constantly pushing him around, hitting him, and kicking his legs out. Of course baby can't stand up if you won't quit fighting him for a few minutes.

But then - that's not going to happen, because the unthinkable might happen. Stable communisms might evolve... and then all the good self-assurances about a flawed model are shown for what they are.

The Anarchists basically sat around getting their arses roundly kicked, trying in vain to run their little areas in whatever particularly stupid way they felt like.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durruti_Column

You're assuming that classes are intrinsic to human nature. We've bent overbackwards giving you reasons why that is not the case.

I'm not "Assuming" anything, genuis. I gave you several reasons. Read my post again and don't bother trying to talk to me until you understand it. This is exactly the kind of shit I'm talking about when I complain about you dismissing my posts out of hand simply because I do not agree with you.

NEXT!

A big steaming load of BS

If we're going to talk about economic models or social policies, you can't possibly make the argument that a social model practiced either in prehistory, or by primitive settlements that may still exist can be made ot work for the rest of us. Leaving aside, for the moment, the obvious fact that these societies still have rulers and decision-making bodies anyway, you need to realize that what works for a couple hundred guys on an island might not necessarily work for the remaining six billion of us. As a general rule, Communism is most effective when practiced between two people, and exponentially becomes less efficient with the inclusion of more people. The reason for this is because a collective working agreement to share resources will give you diminishing returns the more people you share them with. If I'm only sharing with one other guy, I get a specific amount of resources (half) for my labor. If I'm splitting the same amount (or even a proportionately greater amount) of resources among 300 million other people, the same amount of work almost always yields a far lower return. This is why people feel ripped off sometimes when they file their taxes; they realize that for x thousand dollars a year, pretty much all they get is all the free streetlight in the world. As far as I'm concerned, give everyone a candle and give me my money back.

@Grave n Idle: I'm glad you finally decided to join the discussion in a meaningful way, but unfortunately any attempt to put a finger on Communism and say "this is Communism" will always fail. Since the philosophy itself ignores basic definitions, ignores human behavior, preferences, and (most importantly) rights, its adherants will immediately challenge any generalization about Communism made by people like me who aren't Communists. You begin by saying that the idea of a "Classless, Statelss Society" is not "essential" to communism, but from the looks of things I can see three or four other posters here who might disagree. They weave back and forth between CCS and "means of production" as their central concept as it suits them.

@Soheran: To be honest, dude, this crap you're doing with the single line quotes and the splitting my sentences up is getting really old really fast.
*brandishes horse whip, flogs Soheran liberally*

--No, my understanding of Communism is not total. I know enough about it to understand that they advocate that "the people" own the means of production (which they already do in America--what do you think the stock exchange is?); and I don't necessarily have a problem with that since Capitalism did more to put the means of production in the hands of the people than Communism ever did.

--Your elaborations about Communism in answer to my complaint about igoring the onus of proof (regardless of whether or not this thread started with an attack on Communism-- you guys still wouldn't be doing it if it had began the other way around: I've seen it happen) do absolutely nothing to explain how they will work or by what means the transition can even be started. What do you tell the people? How do you get them behind it? Politics is not about ideas, it's about interests. If you're going to tell me that such a society is possible, you'll have to find a way to make the people interested in it.

--If you "don't see most human beings truly 'follow' anyone," pick up a goddamn history book. But this: More to the point, as long as this "follow[ing]" is voluntary, as long as it stems from the esteem of others rather than from the individual's power, it is not truly a class system that has ensued.

is actually a decent point. Unfortunately, since esteemed folks almost invariably [i]try to turn that esteem into some sort of power (be it political power or otherwise), such a voluntary following could quite possibly become a "leader worship" sect or a "cult of personality" with relative ease. Unfortunately, if you're going to maintain civil liberties, you have to let this happen. Why? Well, what if people still want to follow $LEADER voluntarily? Even if he does try to develop or expand his power, people may still voluntarily wish to follow that person.

My point is that the development of power and the nature of human followings is congruent with the maintenance of our civil liberties (although in many cases such a following can eventually be inimical to our liberties--it's the same principle by which I believe that people have the right to be wrong). Since these things will happen even in an Anachro-Communist Society, you have to step in and do something about it or else the whole system crumbles on itself. Capitalism can abide groups of community-minded people working together and sharing the spoils, but Communism cannot sustain the inverse; meaning the development of power and class mentality can't be tolerated under Communism. Since Capitalism is the only of the two philosophies that maintains liberty by allowing individual choice (if you and six million of your closest friends want to live out in a commune in the desert, go right ahead); it is the option currently in front of us by which our liberties can be maintained. Anachro-Communism has lines, just like everything else in the universe. If you let people cross them, your Paradise will implode. If you don't, you'll eventually infringe on our civil liberties (as explained above with the example of people still voluntarily following an individual with power, political or otherwise).

It does not follow from "Some animals have rudimentary social classes" to "Human beings naturally have social classes." All you have shown, if we accept your assertion, is that class can sometimes be natural--not that it necessarily is the case as regards humans.

If you believe in Evolution, a cursory examination of our ancestors (primates) will quite clearly demonstrate the emergence of basic social classes. It's natural for humans because it's natural for the organisms from which humans developed. If we were evolved form... I dunno, vampire bats your challenge would be a reasonable one.

Please tell me at what point these categories meaningfully resemble true "classes" in the political or economic sense.
These categories meaningfully resemble classes in an economic or political sense when people realize they don't share the same economic or political interests or attributes and arrange themselves accordingly.

--Your points about order and security are kind of wishy-washy. You claim that without classes, the need for enforcement will be "minimalized," but you are consistently failing to describe by what means we get people interested in CSS. I don't necessarily agree with you (since people commit crimes against others in many cases regardless of their class/race/standing) because Crime arises from human irrationality, which will always remain.

--If CSS is hurling us back to prehistory, that's not a good thing. It seems to me that the human race is a lot better off now than it was 20,000 years ago, and the institution of rules and boundaries is a big part of what got us out of the goddamn caves to begin with. If it was the "default mode" of human existence 20,000 years ago, it certainly isn't now and I don't see what good returning to such a society will do.

While it might be a stretch to argue that capitalism "creates" poverty and hunger, the simple fact of scarcity creates neither--at least not at this point in economic development. It is the distribution of these scarce resources that does.
No one starves in this country. For the first time in human civilization, we have a society where overeating kills more of us than starvation does. To claim, in the face of this, that Capitalism augments these problems with a sub-par resource distribution model is laughable at best.

By what standard?
Pick one.

--Perhaps saying it's "not broken" was something of a strech, there are a number of things that I would fix about American "Capitalism," but as a general rule I see no glaring need to overhaul this particular society when it's currently as prosperous as it is. I don't support the status quo for the sake of supporting the status quo, but if the status quo is closer to correct than the alternatives, I will.

--Of course people in power are not interested in CSS. That's why politics is about interests rather than ideas. Even leaving those people aside, I would doubt very much that a grassroots campaign in the US would garner much support for CSS. I've been working entry level jobs for four or five years. I've worked on the floor at a UPS sorting facility for going on two years now, and I'm getting ready for my second Christmas (which, as you can imagine, kicks our ass). I have the kind of hands that Lenin would write pamphlets about. I talk politics with my co-workers all the time. You know what we're interested in? We're interested in living our lives unmolested, and we don't care (for the most part) that some people have more than us: we just want to live, and be content while we can. We don't feel we're being "exploited" (unless of course they leave the goddamn belt on until 11pm and make me work through the opening stages of Night Sort ><) because we receive excellent compensation for the work we do. I'm only 22, but I probably have a better health insurance policy than anyone else in this thread. Why? Is it because of some political pressure? Perhaps. The Union has had a lot to do with that, but frankly, It's there because that's what the market will bear. FedEx doesn't have a union (and hence, no insurance policy) but their workers make an extra $2-3 an hour to cover the replacement cost.

Now who, pray tell, is being "exploited" here? Both wages are far above the Federal Minimum (nearly all wages are); and even though I know there are people ahead of me making six figures without doing manual labor, it doesn't bother me. Why? Because I live in a society where it is possible for me to one day become that man.

...it's preposterous for someone like Free Soviets (who never ceases to amuse me) to claim that a classless society is the "default mode" of human existence.
...
Honestly, the idea of a "classless, stateless society" is tantamount to hurling us back into prehistory.

prehistory sheds no light on the human default? really?

also, things that happened in prehistory are impossible?

NEXT!

=>
Are you going to conveniently ignore my earlier post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13187706&postcount=36), then?

prehistory sheds no light on the human default? really?

also, things that happened in prehistory are impossible?

A bit disengenuous, no? There are rather significant differences between the conditions of prehistory and modern conditions, and even there, there was economic inequality between different "societies" and para-statal heierarchies to be followed. Hardly classless or stateless, just organized differently.

prehistory sheds no light on the human default? really?

also, things that happened in prehistory are impossible?

I misspoke. CSS is impossible for modern man in an industrialized society (which I probably overlooked because I assumed it was understood that this was the context under which we were having this discussion). That we had primitive societies in the past does not mean that returning to them--whether they were CSS or not--is viable or possible. Civilization has developed to the point where CSS is impossible.

prehistory sheds no light on the human default? really?

also, things that happened in prehistory are impossible?

Here's a hint: Such systems occur today.

Of course, some people love to consider them "primitive" and in dire need of westernization, but really that's just lightly veiled racism when you get down to it. Forget the fact that when these systems are "westernized", they almost always lead to a far worse off situation than was had before, our system is better for them. Somehow. Magically. If you close your eyes and tap your heels together. And clap your hands. Maybe then the fairy will live.

Of course, some people love to consider them "primitive" and in dire need of westernization, but really that's just lightly veiled racism when you get down to it.

Then care to explain why I'd be presicely as hostile to the idea as practiced by whites and for the same reasons?

Lightly veiled racism my ass. My best friend is a black man.

Here's a hint: Such systems occur today.

That's the point I've made three or four times in the thread, but it's systematically been ignored.

Forget the fact that when these systems are "westernized", they almost always lead to a far worse off situation than was had before

Yup. Compare the slums of Port Moresby to the living conditions in "primitive" rural PNG. The same is true to a lesser extent when you compare Tarawa to outer-islands Kiribati. There are numerous examples.

Then care to explain why I'd be presicely as hostile to the idea as practiced by whites and for the same reasons?

Lightly veiled racism my ass. My best friend is a black man.

Fine. Bad wording.

Ethnocentrism is a bit better.

That's the point I've made three or four times in the thread, but it's systematically been ignored.

More like once. Also, you've not explained why CSS can work for modern, industrialized societies. Again, something that works for a tribe on an island may not necessarily work for the rest of us. You may have missed my (massive) edit about an hour ago, but it's all covered there.


Fine. Bad wording.

Ethnocentrism is a bit better.

Perhaps. But why not be proud of my society when it works? Again, I live in a country where an over abundance of resources is more problematic to us than scarcity (at least with food). "Poor" people in America (by and large) have color TV's, refrigerators, and heated dwellings. You bet your ass I'm ethnocentric.

@Grave n Idle: I'm glad you finally decided to join the discussion in a meaningful way, but unfortunately any attempt to put a finger on Communism and say "this is Communism" will always fail. Since the philosophy itself ignores basic definitions, ignores human behavior, preferences, and (most importantly) rights, its adherants will immediately challenge any generalization about Communism made by people like me who aren't Communists. You begin by saying that the idea of a "Classless, Statelss Society" is not "essential" to communism, but from the looks of things I can see three or four other posters here who might disagree. They weave back and forth between CCS and "means of production" as their central concept as it suits them.


There are three or four people here who disagree. There are a number of sites that disagree.

But - what do those things have in common? They are talking about Marxism as though it were the TOTALITY of communism. Wiki uses a pretty-much direct Marxist definition. Communism.org and Communism.com (both really the same thing) openly declare that their resource is purely Marxist.

Most of the resources are going to be either Marxist or Maoist-Marxist in some form... and those sources that aren't 'recruiting', are likely to be referring to Marxist communism - especially since it is the easiest to debate.

But - what is it that is common to ALL forms of communism? It isn't authoritarianism, centralisation, lack of democracy, anarchy... the only constant is the economic model. There can be communist parties with any agenda you care to name, but what makes them 'communist' or not, is the means of production in the hands of the workers. Anything else is flavour.

It's like making an argument against Christianity, and constantly harping on about the Pope...

I'm interested in why you think communism intrinsically: "ignores basic definitions, ignores human behavior, preferences, and (most importantly) rights"?

Basic definitions? The ONLY constant required is the economic model. Here endeth the definition. Anything else is - as I said - flavour of the individual party. (Think about that for a second... think about 'capitalist' Parties...)

Ignores human behaviour? In what way - communities help each other. Families, villages.... patriotism is a form of the drive that mkes communism a workable concept. Children that are allowed to be selfish, grow up selfish - that's not 'human behaviour', that's parenting.

Ignores preferences? Again, how so? How different to anything else? Do the poor in capitlaist structures choose to be poor, because they 'prefer' it?

Ignores 'rights'? A pretty nebulous concept - what is a 'right' but the absence of 'restriction'? What existence does 'a right' have in isolation? Why do you assume communism automatically removes any of these 'rights' things?

It ignores human behavior by assuming we don't categorize ourselves (we do) or gravitate towards people with similar attributes. It assumes that humans can be put in some kind of environment where we won't notice or act on these differences.

It ignores preferences because it assumes we want a classless, stateless society. Only a very small portion of us do.

It ignores rights by assuming all humans are equal in nature (we're not) and thus alleviating the rewards that come from hard work or risk-taking. If an businessman is willing to stake everything he has on a new venture, he should be rewarded if he succeeds. It's kind of like gambling on a larger scale. Communism usually prevents such gambles, or at the very least, they seek to diminish said gamble's returns.

It ignores definitions by presuming to suggest that a "state" is something other than a governing body (apparently accoring to Marx, at least. I think Soheran brought this up earlier); and my opponents think they're winning something by pointing out that the Marxist definition of a State is not the same of my own. It ignores identity by assuming I am equal in nature to my 300 million closest neighbors.

Still, your points about the varying sections of Communist thought bears reading. It is important for us to figure out just what these ideologies share, since about 6 or 8 people are attacking me on various grounds and they all probably believe in slightly different things. This is why such arguments are always frustrating; because now after all my attacks on CSS (and basically because the idea has been defeated several times over), now we have you coming out and saying that it's not "essential" to Communism; when on the contrary I'd define CSS as being the one main point (besides the people owning the means of production--which, again, we do in America--everyone is free to start a business and there are a multitude of ways to make it happen) that Communism shares among its deviant ideologies.

But - what is it that is common to ALL forms of communism? It isn't authoritarianism, centralisation, lack of democracy, anarchy... the only constant is the economic model. There can be communist parties with any agenda you care to name, but what makes them 'communist' or not, is the means of production in the hands of the workers. Anything else is flavour.


I'm interested in why you think communism intrinsically: "ignores basic definitions, ignores human behavior, preferences, and (most importantly) rights"?




Well in reality centralization and Party are also actually common to communism, since as you say that is the only real way how to put means of production in the hands of workers, would be through some kind of government (otherwise, if workers would have any kind of individual ownership of the means of production, it would defeat ideas of communism and distribution of results of production if not handled centrally opens doors to fraud and "freerider problem").

Hence, I would like to answer to your second paragraph: I don't know about definitions, but Communism ignores human behaviour in a way that ambitions are part of human nature (as well as competitiveness, greed, laziness and others). Central planning, inefficiency and "to each according to his needs" (not wants) ignores the human behaviour. Similarly Communism ignores the preferences. Rights are often ignored due to staggering inefficiencies created by systems flaws, which maybe was the most significant characteristic of Communism in the practice in Soviet Union.

I am not telling that Communism is/was bad as itself. It is great in theory (same as capitalism) and it has its good sides in practice. But as long as you are speaking economically, it was not "good" in contemporary meaning. In general, quite more people were poor (not poor as with lack of money, but poor with lack of choices, which IMHO is worse.).

Well in reality centralization and Party are also actually common to communism


Centralisation has been common to Marxism inspired communist states, as has some avriant on the Communist Party idea. Neither is required.

Example: A communo-anarchic model would allow small groups to self-govern whilst interacting with neighbouring groups as they choose. No need for centralisation, no need for The Party.

...since as you say that is the only real way how to put means of production in the hands of workers, would be through some kind of government (otherwise, if workers would have any kind of individual ownership of the means of production, it would defeat ideas of communism and distribution of results of production if not handled centrally opens doors to fraud and "freerider problem").


'Government' doesn't have to be externally applied. An 'anarchy' can self-govern. A direct democracy can self-govern. (Anarchy and direct democracy are actually practically interchangable).


Hence, I would like to answer to your second paragraph: I don't know about definitions, but Communism ignores human behaviour in a way that ambitions are part of human nature (as well as competitiveness, greed, laziness and others).


Ambition is always about selfishness. I have done things purely for their philanthropic value, and I actually know quite a lot of people that have too. The people I have known that were entirely money-centric, usually were spoiled as children and never learned that selfishness is 'wrong'. They are usually pretty unhappy people too.

In general, quite more people were poor (not poor as with lack of money, but poor with lack of choices, which IMHO is worse.).

The vast majority of people were better off after the Communist Revolution than before it. People point to Stalin's paranoia - but that is a problem with Stalinism, not with communism. People point to the famines in the 20's... but a quick look back over Russian history shows that famines are cyclic.

Is 'lack of choice' worse than lack of food? Really?

It ignores human behavior by assuming we don't categorize ourselves (we do) or gravitate towards people with similar attributes. It assumes that humans can be put in some kind of environment where we won't notice or act on these differences.


Are you seeing the parallel to issues of race and gender, I wonder?


It ignores rights by assuming all humans are equal in nature


What does that have to do with 'rights'?

(we're not) and thus alleviating the rewards that come from hard work or risk-taking. If an businessman is willing to stake everything he has on a new venture, he should be rewarded if he succeeds.


But there's an underlying flaw there... if the businessman doesn't HAVE anything in the first place, it doesn't matter what he is willing to risk - he can't. He is thus punished - but not for lack of initiative, or lack of courage... simply for not having the initial outlay.

And - to be honest - why SHOULD someone be rewarded for taking chances?

Is 'lack of choice' worse than lack of food? Really?

He said "Money," not "Food," and I imagine he did so for a reason. There are plenty of people in America, for instance, that don't have much money, but they still eat and a lot of them are even obese.

This is what I'm talking about when I bitch about you guys contorting definitions to meet your own ends.

He said "Money," not "Food," and I imagine he did so for a reason. There are plenty of people in America, for instance, that don't have much money, but they still eat and a lot of them are even obese.

This is what I'm talking about when I bitch about you guys contorting definitions to meet your own ends.

That's why I didn't put quotes round the word 'food'. (Like I just did there, since I'm now referencing something...)

'Money' is an irrelevent concept if we are talking about a lot of models of communism. Being 'poor' becomes irrelevent in monetary terms. So - what is it that makes people 'poor' in a communism... you could argue lack of supplies or lack of food (which means your whole model is suffering) or you could argue lack of choice. I'd say lack of supply (especially food) is the greater worry.

Are you seeing the parallel to issues of race and gender, I wonder?
Of course I am. People segment themselves that way too; and sometimes they discriminate. But again: people have the right to be wrong and if someone wants to turn "distinctions" into "hatred," that's his business. In a free society, the natural selection of ideas will quickly reveal racism/sexism as bogus. That's why we've made a fair deal of progress on these issues in recent years.

What does that have to do with 'rights'?

Read the rest. By removing the incentives for superior production (wealth), you're taking away our rights by prohibiting economic or social success. People don't have a "right" to be prosperous, but they do have the right to take a crack at it.

But there's an underlying flaw there... if the businessman doesn't HAVE anything in the first place, it doesn't matter what he is willing to risk - he can't. He is thus punished - but not for lack of initiative, or lack of courage... simply for not having the initial outlay.
If he doesn't have the resources to gamble with, that's a different issue. The freedom is still there but he may not be able to instantly take advantage of it. PLEASE KEEP READING. However, with careful spending habits and hard work, once can (and usually does) gather the resources nessary for such a venture, whether he chooses to execute it or not. Starting a business is within the grasp of the wide majority of Americans; most choose not to do it for a variety of reasons.

Some of our most successful businesses (including, in point of fact, the one I happen to work for) started as little more than basement operations. For most of us, getting to this point requires a fair bit of work, just like everything else in life. It's not "unfair" or "immoral" on that basis, and CSS/Means of Production/Communism/whatever-you-want-to-call-it-this-week seems to assume that it is.

And - to be honest - why SHOULD someone be rewarded for taking chances?
That's one of the stupidest questions I've ever been asked. Taking chances is a basic part of life--we do it every time we get in a car or step outside. People should be rewarded for taking chances because that's how reality works. If you "take the chance" of driving on the freeway, your reward is getting to your destination quickly. If you "take the chance" of starting a business, your reward is (potentially) fantastic wealth. That's why Capitalism works--because it is in tune with reality and doesn't presume to change the basic facts about how we interact with reality.

Of course I am. People segment themselves that way too; and sometimes they discriminate. But again: people have the right to be wrong and if someone wants to turn "distinctions" into "hatred," that's his business. In a free society, the natural selection of ideas will quickly reveal racism/sexism as bogus. That's why we've made a fair deal of progress on these issues in recent years.


Where is this mythical place of which you speak? I'd say the largest concerted impact on discriminatory practise has been making it illegal.

I wonder where you think there is a 'free society' where 'the natural selection of ideas' did the work.


Read the rest. By removing the incentives for superior production (wealth), you're taking away our rights by prohibiting economic or social success. People don't have a "right" to be prosperous, but they do have the right to take a crack at it.


Oh. I see. I didn't realise by 'rights' you solely meant the 'right' to make money.


If he doesn't have the resources to gamble with, that's a different issue. The freedom is still there but he may not be able to instantly take advantage of it. PLEASE KEEP READING. However, with careful spending habits and hard work, once can (and usually does) gather the resources nessary for such a venture, whether he chooses to execute it or not. Starting a business is within the grasp of the wide majority of Americans; most choose not to do it for a variety of reasons.

Some of our most successful businesses (including, in point of fact, the one I happen to work for) started as little more than basement operations. For most of us, getting to this point requires a fair bit of work, just like everything else in life. It's not "unfair" or "immoral" on that basis, and CSS/Means of Production/Communism/whatever-you-want-to-call-it-this-week seems to assume that it is.


So - there is nothing 'unfair' about the fact that talent, ability, drive, desire - all are secondary to having the right credit score?

I guess you are right, in a way. Societies tend to end up with the government they deserve - America has earned itself a self-serving, uncaring, morally bankrupt government.


That's one of the stupidest questions I've ever been asked. Taking chances is a basic part of life--we do it every time we get in a car or step outside. People should be rewarded for taking chances because that's how reality works. If you "take the chance" of driving on the freeway, your reward is getting to your destination quickly. If you "take the chance" of starting a business, your reward is (potentially) fantastic wealth. That's why Capitalism works--because it is in tune with reality and doesn't presume to change the basic facts about how we interact with reality.

It's one of the stupidest questions you've ever been asked... and yet you couldn't answer it?

"Because that's what life is like" isn't an answer to "why SHOULD x be true"?

The rest, therefore, while very pretty I'm sure... is prevaricating about the bush.

A man who has a hungry family to feed is going to prioritise some kind of consistent paycheck, if he can. He is going to try to ensure there is food on the table. According to your 'logic' he should be rewarded if, instead, he hits the dogs and lays it all on number 7.

Had to come back and tie down an errant thought....

That's why Capitalism works.

Where on earth did you get an amusing idea like that?

Had to come back and tie down an errant thought....



Where on earth did you get an amusing idea like that?

How about looking at the countries with the best economies, who like to identify themselves as "democratic socialists", but which is really just slightly watered down capitalism. Capitalist countries have always had the best economies, even in the hands of corrupt people.

How about looking at the countries with the best economies, who like to identify themselves as "democratic socialists", but which is really just slightly watered down capitalism. Capitalist countries have always had the best economies, even in the hands of corrupt people.

Show me a single country where the economic model has been in absolute isolation?

Something can be 'best' without that thing being any good... if all the choices are bad.

Show me a single country where the economic model has been in absolute isolation?


Again, I said watered down capitalism. There aren't really any pure capitalist countries.


Something can be 'best' without that thing being any good... if all the choices are bad.

So is there not a single good country?

It's one of the stupidest questions you've ever been asked... and yet you couldn't answer it?

"Because that's what life is like" isn't an answer to "why SHOULD x be true"?

The rest, therefore, while very pretty I'm sure... is prevaricating about the bush.


Would answering that get you anywhere?

"Life is like that"
"Well, life is wrong"
"..."
"..."
"...and?"

Again, I said watered down capitalism. There aren't really any pure capitalist countries.


Right. So.. .why would someone say such a thing as 'capitalism works'?

Even where the economic model is pretty straightforward capitalism, economic models don't exist in isolation. Look at how much intervention is required to make our capitalism 'work'.


So is there not a single good country?

Good? No.

Right. So.. .why would someone say such a thing as 'capitalism works'?

Even where the economic model is pretty straightforward capitalism, economic models don't exist in isolation. Look at how much intervention is required to make our capitalism 'work'.


I feel its the other way round, big governments rely if not completely depend on their free market/capitalist elements to work. I don't feel that there has really ever been a true free market economy yet, so we can't know. It's plain to me however, that the amount of efficient and rich economies seem proportional to the more capitalist economies.


Good? No.

What would need to happen before the economy is good?

Also, you've not explained why CSS can work for modern, industrialized societies. Again, something that works for a tribe on an island may not necessarily work for the rest of us.

I never claimed it could. Not within the foreseeable future, anyway. My point was to refute the ridiculous claim that communism goes against "human nature". Empirically, it does not.

Now, I'm not naive (at least, I like to think not). I don't believe in revolutionary communism. Revolutions can produce State socialism, but experience has shown that such systems imposed and maintained by force are ultimately self-defeating. An industrialised society cannot achieve and maintain socialism -let alone communism- if people are not ready for it.

Our "modern", consumerist societies have produced a high level of individualisation and societal atomisation, which -to put it mildly- are not exactly conducive to a frame of mind capable of embracing socialism. Socialism (and ultimately communism) can be successful only if they are based on consensus. They require, by their very nature, active and willing participation by the people, along with a strong sense of society, solidarity, reciprocity and mutual dependence. The very opposite of what we have at present. Capitalism appears to be an inevitable product of industrialisation, although of course business interests do much to maintain it, and encourage it as an ideology.

With that in mind, I can't imagine sustainable communist (or even fully socialist) societies in the industrialised world within the foreseable future. However, we know now that capitalism is an abberation, an unsustainable folly itself. Nobody can seriously suggest now that it is "the end of history". Those who are ignorant of both history and foreign societies, those who, because of their own ignorance, are incapable of conceiving of other modes of society, have come to view Western capitalism -and even post-1980s neoliberalism- as the "norm". It isn't. In its present form, it is contingent and recent, and yet already it shows its limitations. The consumerist frenzy, the blind emphasis on wasteful and unsustainable production, cannot endure. We all know its cost to the environment we live in. Within our lifespan, our current way of life, exploiting and consuming ressources like never before, while locking ourselves in blind, selfish individualism, will become impossible to maintain.

I can't predict how things will change in forty or fifty years. Obviously things will change quite significantly once we cannot continue this ridiculous form of capitalism, and we are forced to adapt to its long-term consequences. Will people become more aware of their existence within a wider society, with responsibilities instead of merely the selfish "rights" emphasised by capitalism? I don't know. Perhaps then something akin to socialism will slowly develop. Perhaps not. I suppose I'll find out if I live long enough.

In a free society, the natural selection of ideas will quickly reveal racism/sexism as bogus.

Ah. That reminds me of one of the main differences between you and I. You have a strange optimism and faith in mankind's intelligence, and in its willingness to embrace fact rather than prejudice. It's readily apparent that a great number of people find complex thinking too tiresome. They prefer ultra-simplistic ready-made erroneous answers to life's more complex questions.

I've found that most people have a need to feel they know the answers to... anything, really. But they're not prepared to put the effort into grappling intellectually with the complexities of fact. It's not about working out reality, it's about the comforting illusion that you have answers. (We're all prone to that, alas, including yours truly and yourself, to various extents.) That's why most people will prefer extremely simplistic illusory answers -which help them feel in control- rather than admit uncertainty or make the effort to really think for themselves and challenge their initial misconceptions.

Freedom has little to do with it. Of course, for rubbish to be debunked you do need a free society in which ideas can be debated and challenged by those who want to do so. But that in itself is never going to be enough. There's no reason to believe the "natural selection of ideas" will yield genuine facts or meaningful and reasonable ideas that the majority find acceptable. If you have large numbers of people who, for reasons stated above, prefer simplistic nonsense, then simplistic nonsense is not going to magically be overcome by the reasoning of a more intelligent minority.

If he doesn't have the resources to gamble with, that's a different issue.
"Gamble" - that is an excellent choice of words, because the success or failure of a business venture is not ultimately up to the businessman, but, as capitalists often point out, it is up to the impersonal forces of supply and demand.

Some of our most successful businesses (including, in point of fact, the one I happen to work for) started as little more than basement operations. For most of us, getting to this point requires a fair bit of work, just like everything else in life.
No socialist doubts that many businessmen do in fact work. The problem is that their rewards are completely out of proportion to the work they provide. This happens because they get rewards not only for their own work, but they also extract rewards for the work of others by exploiting their employees.

That's one of the stupidest questions I've ever been asked. Taking chances is a basic part of life--we do it every time we get in a car or step outside. People should be rewarded for taking chances because that's how reality works. If you "take the chance" of driving on the freeway, your reward is getting to your destination quickly. If you "take the chance" of starting a business, your reward is (potentially) fantastic wealth.
Taking chances is sometimes necessary, and sometimes it isn't. A person who parachutes from a plane is taking chances - does that mean he should be awarded with fantastic wealth if he survives, just because he took a chance? No, because parachuting is not a productive activity; it is not necessary for someone to take that chance, therefore you should not be rewarded for taking it.

Socialists argue that businessmen are not necessary. Yes, they take chances - but just like a person parachuting or bungee jumping, they take unproductive, unnecessary chances.

@Soheran: To be honest, dude, this crap you're doing with the single line quotes and the splitting my sentences up is getting really old really fast.

I respond to points, not to sentences, or to paragraphs.

If you think I have actually missed something because of my sentence-splitting, say something.

--No, my understanding of Communism is not total. I know enough about it to understand that they advocate that "the people" own the means of production (which they already do in America--what do you think the stock exchange is?)

The absurdly lopsided distribution of stock ownership (and other elements of real wealth) is no substitute for "the people" owning the means of production in any meaningful sense.

For an analogy, the principle of democracy (people's rule) is "one person, one vote", not "everyone can theoretically get a vote, or even more than one, but in practice the overwhelming share of the votes are in the hands of a tiny minority."

Your elaborations about Communism in answer to my complaint about igoring the onus of proof (regardless of whether or not this thread started with an attack on Communism-- you guys still wouldn't be doing it if it had began the other way around: I've seen it happen)

For someone who so disdains collectivism, you do seem fond of guilt by association.

do absolutely nothing to explain how they will work

How they will work to do what?

I explained how communists would organize society to be classless and stateless, since you denied that such a thing was possible.

or by what means the transition can even be started.

Now this is an entirely different question, and a more difficult one to answer... but also one, it should be pointed out, that has no bearing on the sustainability or justice of a communist society once it is in existence. (And therefore it cannot tell me, a person who is already a communist, that communism is a bad idea... at most argument on this subject can only convince me that the attempt to bring it into existence is hopeless, not that the results of such a change would be wrong or bad.)

What do you tell the people? How do you get them behind it?

You tell them that it is (a) in their best interests (because most people are disadvantaged by capitalism, not privileged by it) and (b) most in accordance with justice (because the gross inequalities and tolerance of human suffering under capitalism is not.)

This would require pointing out, for instance, the high concentration of wealth and power under capitalism, and asking whether entrusting a minority with such control this is truly in accordance with the general welfare... not to mention freedom.

--If you "don't see most human beings truly 'follow' anyone," pick up a goddamn history book.

And see what?

Are there true "followers" of one person or another? Sure, but they tend to be minorities, and usually rather small ones.

Are there times when the general population is impressed with a specific leader? Yes, but usually their loyalty will wane when he or she does something they don't like.

is actually a decent point. Unfortunately, since esteemed folks almost invariably [i]try to turn that esteem into some sort of power

Certainly it's possible for them to do that, but I'm not at all sure that this is "almost invariable."

Indeed, an esteemed person may be quite content with her esteem... and if she is truly rational, if she has an honest sense of pride, she will recognize that the sort of "esteem" derived through power is quite vacuous. (If I force someone to say, "Soheran, you are the most intelligent person ever", I have proven nothing at all about my intelligence.)

(be it political power or otherwise), such a voluntary following could quite possibly become a "leader worship" sect or a "cult of personality" with relative ease. Unfortunately, if you're going to maintain civil liberties, you have to let this happen. Why? Well, what if people still want to follow $LEADER voluntarily? Even if he does try to develop or expand his power, people may still voluntarily wish to follow that person.

But as long as this is a voluntary decision, any "power" the person wields is necessarily contingent on continued support.

I should alter my phrasing here a little, because I do accept the notion of social power: even without direct coercive force (the foundation of political power) or economic dependence and contingency (the foundation of economic power), we can speak of people being marginalized, oppressed, and dominated.

But I don't see this problem (into which we might group, say, cultural sexism, racism, and homophobia as well as the threat of the "popular bully on the playground" equivalent) as something that anarchist communism is particularly capable of dealing with (though we might be able to better manage the political and economic aspects of these kinds of oppression)... so in a sense you are right--there may be still elements of class society remaining under an anarchist economic and political model.

But this still does not preclude the possibility of classlessness in a society that manages to tackle such social and cultural problems, nor does it somehow delegitimize the potential accomplishments of anarcho-communism as regards the abolition of economic and political classes.

My point is that the development of power and the nature of human followings is congruent with the maintenance of our civil liberties (although in many cases such a following can eventually be inimical to our liberties--it's the same principle by which I believe that people have the right to be wrong).

But you appear to want to have your cake and eat it too, for we are only obligated to respect such civil liberties as long as the association remains voluntary, and as long as it remains voluntary it threatens neither economic nor political equality.

Since these things will happen even in an Anachro-Communist Society, you have to step in and do something about it or else the whole system crumbles on itself.

Only if the leader and his or her following decide to take over: to restore hierarchical economic and political rule.

Like I said, this problem exists in every system of social organization. In capitalism, too, there exists the possibility that a particularly charismatic leader gathers together a following to abolish property and individual rights... at the outset, if you believe in civil liberties, you cannot interfere, but ultimately it may lead to the demise of the system.

That is a price of freedom.

Capitalism can abide groups of community-minded people working together and sharing the spoils, but Communism cannot sustain the inverse; meaning the development of power and class mentality can't be tolerated under Communism.

"Sharing the spoils" suddenly changes the nature of this example.

If you mean that groups of people begin hoarding economic resources, it has ceased to be a truly voluntary association: now they are attempting to exercise power against non-members, and the community can and should respond to such a threat.

If you mean "spoils" more loosely as just social benefits, I see no reason why communism as a system cannot tolerate this.

If you believe in Evolution, a cursory examination of our ancestors (primates) will quite clearly demonstrate the emergence of basic social classes. It's natural for humans because it's natural for the organisms from which humans developed.

Really? So human beings are the same as other primates in every respect?

These categories meaningfully resemble classes in an economic or political sense when people realize they don't share the same economic or political interests or attributes and arrange themselves accordingly.

No, even this does not lead to classes, merely to groupings.

Are the members of the Democratic Party a "class" in any relevant sense?

Your points about order and security are kind of wishy-washy. You claim that without classes, the need for enforcement will be "minimalized," but you are consistently failing to describe by what means we get people interested in CSS.

I don't see the connection between these two elements.

I don't necessarily agree with you (since people commit crimes against others in many cases regardless of their class/race/standing) because Crime arises from human irrationality, which will always remain.

Maybe, but there are circumstances more conducive to reason than others.

Put people in desperate situations and they are much less likely to be rational than otherwise.

If CSS is hurling us back to prehistory, that's not a good thing. It seems to me that the human race is a lot better off now than it was 20,000 years ago,

Maybe, but my point was not that human society would be better off if we hurl ourselves back into prehistory--it was that if you truly believe that that is what CSS constitutes, you must also believe that equality is fundamentally natural for human beings. After all, human beings were in "prehistory" for the vast majority of the species' existence.

This does not, of course, mean that radical equality would necessarily work in a society like ours... though it does call into question the arguments you have leveled against the possibility of a classless society, which have not focused on the specific challenges of modern society but rather on supposedly natural and intrinsic elements to human society and culture.

and the institution of rules and boundaries is a big part of what got us out of the goddamn caves to begin with.

Are you just going to continue ignoring the fact that anarchist societies do not abolish rules and boundaries?

Not that "primitive" societies were actually rule-less... while admittedly they did not tend to have "laws" as "modern" societies do, such systems are more of a product than a cause.

If it was the "default mode" of human existence 20,000 years ago, it certainly isn't now

What, the "default" can change? Have our natures been radically modified in twenty thousand years?

Perhaps our societies have been, but that is artificial modification: it does not address the question of default.

No one starves in this country. For the first time in human civilization, we have a society where overeating kills more of us than starvation does.

This material abundance is not necessarily sustainable, especially not taking into account increasing competition for scarce resources on the part of developing countries, and the looming possibility of ecological catastrophe.

Nor are you taking into account the welfare of those who do not live in the United States.

To claim, in the face of this, that Capitalism augments these problems with a sub-par resource distribution model is laughable at best.

No, it doesn't.

Economic growth reduces (absolute) poverty and starvation. Everyone agrees there.

The question is whether capitalist economic growth alleviates poverty and starvation as much as it should... or rather, as much as an alternative might.

Pick one.

How about working hours? HDI? Life expectancy? We're not even first in labor productivity or GDP per capita, let alone other, more comprehensive measures of social welfare.

I see no way whatsoever that you could conclude we are "far better off" than our counterparts in any direction.

I don't support the status quo for the sake of supporting the status quo, but if the status quo is closer to correct than the alternatives, I will.

Yeah, but that requires actually showing that the status quo is "closer to correct than the alternatives"... not simply stating, "it's good, so let's not change it."

Note, crucially, that the first is a relative measure, the second an absolute one: if the first is your standard, you can never look solely at capitalism's results and say "I will not support any alternative."

You know what we're interested in? We're interested in living our lives unmolested, and we don't care (for the most part) that some people have more than us: we just want to live, and be content while we can.

Maybe, and to be honest I don't think this situation will change as long as economic stability is maintained.

But this is how people are: they are generally not inclined to make radical changes until they have the direct, pressing, material need to do so, and that no longer exists (for most people) in developed capitalism, at least at the moment. I have no intention on forcing those changes on them, but I fail to see how any of this proves that such changes are not a good idea.

We don't feel we're being "exploited" (unless of course they leave the goddamn belt on until 11pm and make me work through the opening stages of Night Sort ><) because we receive excellent compensation for the work we do.

Even if it were the case that everyone received "excellent compensation" (as it is clearly not), that would be no reason not to ask the question: is there a better distribution?

Furthermore, part of the promise of socialism is not merely wealth redistribution, but an attempt to make labor more genuinely enjoyable and fulfilling, rather than something most people don't like (indeed, don't like so much that they must be compelled or bribed to work, and generally are trained to do so from an early age.)

Failing that, at the least socialism aspires to make this sort of labor a less dominant aspect of our lives--and if we truly are producing so much wealth, the prospect of redistribution permits us to make some sacrifices in production for the sake of such ends without significantly harming the living standards (considered in the narrow "income and wealth" sense) of the average person.

Now who, pray tell, is being "exploited" here? Both wages are far above the Federal Minimum (nearly all wages are); and even though I know there are people ahead of me making six figures without doing manual labor, it doesn't bother me. Why? Because I live in a society where it is possible for me to one day become that man.

"Possible", maybe, but very unlikely... and if the only way it is possible is depriving others of some of the freedom and happiness that is their due, it is hardly a justification.

Perhaps. But why not be proud of my society when it works? Again, I live in a country where an over abundance of resources is more problematic to us than scarcity (at least with food). "Poor" people in America (by and large) have color TV's, refrigerators, and heated dwellings. You bet your ass I'm ethnocentric.

And I am trying to point out that our system does not work everywhere. Infact, it tends to be downright destructive for a good portion of the world.

If an businessman is willing to stake everything he has on a new venture, he should be rewarded if he succeeds.He is rewarded. His new venture now exists. The existence of something that didn't exist before is a reward.

It ignores definitions by presuming to suggest that a "state" is something other than a governing bodyIt is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State

Max Weber's definition is that organization that has a "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory,"

As you can see, it is not merely a governing body. It couldn't be anyway. The Board of Directors of a corporation governs the actions of the corporation, so it is a governing body. However, it is hardly a state.

I misspoke. CSS is impossible for modern man in an industrialized society (which I probably overlooked because I assumed it was understood that this was the context under which we were having this discussion). That we had primitive societies in the past does not mean that returning to them--whether they were CSS or not--is viable or possible. Civilization has developed to the point where CSS is impossible.

so then it is the default after all?

and what of your 'basic thesis', that "a Classless, Stateless Society cannot and will not exist because it is contrary to human behavior and preferences"?

He is rewarded. His new venture now exists. The existence of something that didn't exist before is a reward.

That is the most retarded mentality ever. Someone should waste all their time making something for the satisfaction of having it creating? Without extra rewards like money or fame no one would ever make anything. Do you seriously want to invest all your time and money to make a bank with no returns except the satisfaction that you created a bank?? Yeah, that's very rewarding.

That is the most retarded mentality ever. Someone should waste all their time making something for the satisfaction of having it creating? Without extra rewards like money or fame no one would ever make anything. Do you seriously want to invest all your time and money to make a bank with no returns except the satisfaction that you created a bank?? Yeah, that's very rewarding.Really? No one would ever create anything? Emily Dickinson wrote dozens of poems. She published 3 of them during her lifetime. She didn't become famous or rich during her lifetime. Why did she create them?
Why did Van Gogh paint? He only sold one painting during his lifetime.
Why did you create that post? Were you paid for it?

If you believe in Evolution, a cursory examination of our ancestors (primates) will quite clearly demonstrate the emergence of basic social classes.

actually, you can see the reduction of hierarchies and sexual dimorphism from our even earlier ancestors. our closer anscestors seem to have made a major leap towards rather radical egalitarianism at some point, but the trend is not completely from nowhere.

--If CSS is hurling us back to prehistory, that's not a good thing. It seems to me that the human race is a lot better off now than it was 20,000 years ago, and the institution of rules and boundaries is a big part of what got us out of the goddamn caves to begin with. If it was the "default mode" of human existence 20,000 years ago, it certainly isn't now and I don't see what good returning to such a society will do.

1) while it is somewhat true that we are better off now than our ancestors of 20,000 years ago (at least you and me in particular, and in some, but not all, important respects), they had it better than pretty much everybody during all the time between ~8000 and ~50 years ago, and still come out on top when compared to vast swaths of the population alive today.

2) we are sort of built to like operating under those default conditions - hence the well attested impulse towards egalitarianism, for example.
(also of note is that we feel better when doing stuff that resembles the sort of things our ancestors did)

3) i see no reason to believe that classlessness and statelessness themselves are the determining factors of technological level

There are several problems with communism which I haven't seen adressed.
First, there is the fact that any system that denies human nature cannot, therefore, represent humans.
There is also the fact that Communism takes away someone's natural right to private property. If you put effort into something, it's yours. That's a fundemental law of humanity. If you take the apple off the tree, that apples yours. Christianity also supports the idea of private property. In Genisis, God gave the earth to Adam and Eve. In the New Testement, Jesus said "Give unto Ceasar what is his, and give unto God what is his."
There's also the fact that Marxism does not see the Proletariant and the Burgeoise as both humans. It sees them as seperate races, which is rediculous. But Marx believed that the Proletariant would not surcoumb to the pressures and power wanting that the Burgeouise did. However, both being human, they would both surcumb. (I still maintain the Burgeoise is great, I'm just saying how inherintly suicideal marxism is)
Also, communism will destroy itself. It doesn't create a classless society- from a great Anti-Communist song "Poverty for All," a lyric goes "The Proletarian's now the Red Burgeoise." all it does is replaces the ruling class with another ruling class, the Communists. And even if they were the majority, they were still a ruling class, and ruling classes don't give up power.


NOTE: I am not critizing the Burgeoise here, I am just saying how inherintly suicidal Marxism is because FROM ITS OWN PERSPECTIVE it fails. I just wanted to illistrate how pretty pathetic that is.


DEATH TO MARXISM! DEATH TO MARXISM! DEATH TO MARXISM! LONG LIVE REAGAN! LONG LIVE DEMOCRACY! LONG LIVE CAPITALISM! LONG LIVE FREE SPEECH! YAY BUSH!

Personal Message to Karl Marx: :upyours:

Really? No one would ever create anything? Emily Dickinson wrote dozens of poems. She published 3 of them during her lifetime. She didn't become famous or rich during her lifetime. Why did she create them?
Why did Van Gogh paint? He only sold one painting during his lifetime.
Why did you create that post? Were you paid for it?

Every person you named (except for me) was an artist. Artists tend to be a little loony, and are generally more concerned with spreading their message than with making money. That's why they're artists. For the rest of the population, something a lot more tangible is needed. Yeah, I can write a post without you paying me to do it. But, create an international business and get paid nothing extra? Hell no.

If you want a historical arguement to back my point up, while the founding fathers were creating the constitution, they were split between whether they should give the president a salary or not. They ultimately decided to give the president a salary, because satisfaction with leading the country is an insufficient reward and a weak incentive in attractive people to office.

Or, should I put it this way? Would you become president of the US and get paid in nothing but the satisfaction that you are fulfilling your patriotic duty?

If you say yes, then I'll say you're lying.

There are several problems with communism which I haven't seen adressed.
First, there is the fact that any system that denies human nature cannot, therefore, represent humans.
There is also the fact that Communism takes away someone's natural right to private property. If you put effort into something, it's yours. That's a fundemental law of humanity. If you take the apple off the tree, that apples yours. Christianity also supports the idea of private property. In Genisis, God gave the earth to Adam and Eve. In the New Testement, Jesus said "Give unto Ceasar what is his, and give unto God what is his."
There's also the fact that Marxism does not see the Proletariant and the Burgeoise as both humans. It sees them as seperate races, which is rediculous. But Marx believed that the Proletariant would not surcoumb to the pressures and power wanting that the Burgeouise did. However, both being human, they would both surcumb. (I still maintain the Burgeoise is great, I'm just saying how inherintly suicideal marxism is)
Also, communism will destroy itself. It doesn't create a classless society- from a great Anti-Communist song "Poverty for All," a lyric goes "The Proletarian's now the Red Burgeoise." all it does is replaces the ruling class with another ruling class, the Communists. And even if they were the majority, they were still a ruling class, and ruling classes don't give up power- once again, a fundemental law of human nature.


NOTE: I am not critizing the Burgeoise here, I am just saying how inherintly suicidal Marxism is because FROM ITS OWN PERSPECTIVE it fails. I just wanted to illistrate how pretty pathetic that is.


DEATH TO MARXISM! DEATH TO MARXISM! DEATH TO MARXISM! LONG LIVE REAGAN! LONG LIVE DEMOCRACY! LONG LIVE CAPITALISM! LONG LIVE FREE SPEECH! YAY BUSH!

Personal Message to Karl Marx: :upyours:

First, there is the fact that any system that denies human nature cannot, therefore, represent humans.

Well, if you're listing arguments that haven't been made, you're behind... that one was made already by Melkor Unchained.

Anyway, how exactly does communism "deny" human nature?

There is also the fact that Communism takes away someone's natural right to private property. If you put effort into something, it's yours. That's a fundemental law of humanity.

Why is this "a fundamental law of humanity"?

Perhaps in some sense I have a right to the "fruits" of my effort, but what these "fruits" are is not a matter of material product, but of subjective intention: if I know (say, because I live in a communist society) that I will not receive a material return for my efforts, but I invest them anyway, I can hardly claim a "right" to anything after the fact.

Christianity also supports the idea of private property.

I couldn't care less as to what Christianity does or does not support.

There's also the fact that Marxism does not see the Proletariant and the Burgeoise as both humans. It sees them as seperate races, which is rediculous.

It would be, if it were remotely true....

But Marx believed that the Proletariant would not surcoumb to the pressures and power wanting that the Burgeouise did. However, both being human, they would both surcumb.

Actually, Marx believed that the proletariat, when put into power after the socialist revolution, would do exactly what was in its interests: destroy the remnants of the capitalist order.

The reason we get classlessness from this and not from the bourgeois state is that while the interests of the proletariat are for classlessness (because the class system permits them to be exploited) the interests of the bourgeoisie are for continued class rule (because its very existence is dependent on the exploitation of the proletariat.)

It has nothing to do with seeing them as a separate species and everything to do with recognizing their different places in the economic structure.

(I don't necessarily agree with the Marxist analysis, but if you're going to attack it, at least don't misrepresent it.)

Also, communism will destroy itself. It doesn't create a classless society- from a great Anti-Communist song "Poverty for All," a lyric goes "The Proletarian's now the Red Burgeoise." all it does is replaces the ruling class with another ruling class, the Communists.

"Poverty for All", if I recall correctly from it being posted on these forums a while ago, is about the Hungarian uprising of 1956... even if for some reason we were to unquestionably accept the analysis contained within the song's lyrics, it would only pertain to the sort of Soviet-style "Communism" that none of the communists who have yet posted in this thread advocate or defend.

Especially since most of us are anarchists, and reject the Leninist methods that (arguably) ultimately led to Stalinism.

And even if they were the majority, they were still a ruling class, and ruling classes don't give up power

No. But there may no longer be anything for them to "rule" over anymore.

Every person you named (except for me) was an artist. Artists tend to be a little loony, and are generally more concerned with spreading their message than with making money. That's why they're artists. For the rest of the population, something a lot more tangible is needed. Yeah, I can write a post without you paying me to do it. But, create an international business and get paid nothing extra? Hell no.If artists are concerned with creating something, then why not a businessman?

If you want a historical arguement to back my point up, while the founding fathers were creating the constitution, they were split between whether they should give the president a salary or not. They ultimately decided to give the president a salary, because satisfaction with leading the country is an insufficient reward and a weak incentive in attractive people to office.

Or, should I put it this way? Would you become president of the US and get paid in nothing but the satisfaction that you are fulfilling your patriotic duty?

If you say yes, then I'll say you're lying.If I had other sources of income that gave me enough to live on? Absolutely.

Of course, that's the problem with not paying politicians - they have to be independently wealthy, otherwise nobody could afford to give up their jobs to do it.

In a communist system, on the other hand, people would have enough to live on irrespective of whether or not they used their free time to create something or not.

There is also the fact that Communism takes away someone's natural right to private property. Rights are legal constructs. There's nothing natural about them.

If you put effort into something, it's yours. That's a fundemental law of humanity.

including stolen cars?

In Genisis, God gave the earth to Adam and Eve.

pretending this is a real argument for the moment, would you mind pointing out where exactly god establishes that adam and eve have private property rights over anything?

In the New Testement, Jesus said "Give unto Ceasar what is his, and give unto God what is his."

that doesn't mean what you think it means. also, check your acts 4:32-35

There are several problems with communism which I haven't seen adressed.
First, there is the fact that any system that denies human nature cannot, therefore, represent humans.
There is also the fact that Communism takes away someone's natural right to private property. If you put effort into something, it's yours. That's a fundemental law of humanity. If you take the apple off the tree, that apples yours. Christianity also supports the idea of private property. In Genisis, God gave the earth to Adam and Eve. In the New Testement, Jesus said "Give unto Ceasar what is his, and give unto God what is his."
There's also the fact that Marxism does not see the Proletariant and the Burgeoise as both humans. It sees them as seperate races, which is rediculous. But Marx believed that the Proletariant would not surcoumb to the pressures and power wanting that the Burgeouise did. However, both being human, they would both surcumb. (I still maintain the Burgeoise is great, I'm just saying how inherintly suicideal marxism is)
Also, communism will destroy itself. It doesn't create a classless society- from a great Anti-Communist song "Poverty for All," a lyric goes "The Proletarian's now the Red Burgeoise." all it does is replaces the ruling class with another ruling class, the Communists. And even if they were the majority, they were still a ruling class, and ruling classes don't give up power- once again, a fundemental law of human nature.


NOTE: I am not critizing the Burgeoise here, I am just saying how inherintly suicidal Marxism is because FROM ITS OWN PERSPECTIVE it fails. I just wanted to illistrate how pretty pathetic that is.


DEATH TO MARXISM! DEATH TO MARXISM! DEATH TO MARXISM! LONG LIVE REAGAN! LONG LIVE DEMOCRACY! LONG LIVE CAPITALISM! LONG LIVE FREE SPEECH! YAY BUSH!

Personal Message to Karl Marx: :upyours:

42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and in fellowship [...] 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

The theme is reiterated in Acts 4:32-37:

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. (King James Version)

49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. 51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why do you ask me about what is good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. 14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.

28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in; 36 Naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.

Leviticus 25:35-38: "If one [...] becomes poor [...] help him [...] so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God [...] You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God." and Acts 4:32-35, "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had [...] there were no needy persons among them [...] the money [...] was distributed to anyone as he had need." As well as Acts 2:42-47, "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching [...] to the breaking of bread [...] everyone was filled with awe [...] all the believers were together and had everything in common [...] they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they [...] ate together with glad and sincere hearts [...] "

1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. 6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. 7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. 8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. 9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

6 But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. 7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. (King James Version)


So, Jesus was a capitalist you say?

[To Grave_n_Idle] You're being purposefully obtuse.Well, he's being purposely obtuse. On my read, however, I'm not sure I'd dignify his evasions with the aura of actual purpose. ;)

Soheran, I apologize for neglecting our earlier discussion, but I sense that it amounts to a disagreement nearly as intractable as our previous debates on free will. While I think I have the advantage here in that the result of that debate has you already agreeing to the premises leading to my thesis regarding the general will versus partial interests (I just need to get you to see the connection), I have no reason to believe you will change your mind without a detailed and protracted examination--nor should you.

Unfortunately, this hits me in the middle of a grading crunch. I just don't have the time right now I would need to satisfy you. I hope you'll take a "rain check."

In the meantime, allow me to suggest obliquely that the real issue here is whether it is possible to conceive of a democratic politics that favors the best argument over the initial headcount. A coalition politics of interest, as you have championed it, takes the initial headcount for granted and then works toward political compromise. A politics of reason takes the initial headcount as a starting position and seeks political agreement.

You should also ask yourself if it makes sense to have courts if we cannot, in any circumstance, rely on human beings to be persuaded by argument rather than interest.

If artists are concerned with creating something, then why not a businessman?

If I had other sources of income that gave me enough to live on? Absolutely.

Of course, that's the problem with not paying politicians - they have to be independently wealthy, otherwise nobody could afford to give up their jobs to do it.

In a communist system, on the other hand, people would have enough to live on irrespective of whether or not they used their free time to create something or not.

Rights are legal constructs. There's nothing natural about them.

Ok. For starters, the idea that communism is amazing because everyone has enough to live relatively comfortably is COMPLETELY WRONG. This belief automatically assumes that there is enough to go around, when there actual isn't. Playing into our earlier discussion, people simply don't work if they don't have enough incentives. Why should anyone go the extra mile if they don't recieve anything for it? Yes, there are a few very idealistic people who work because they love the system, or work because they simply love what they do (like artists, and the like). But most of humanity simply doesn't function that way. Scientists become scientists because they love what they do (usually), but they are mainly in it for the fame. Businessmen, lawyers, or doctors may love what they do, but they do largely what they do because of money. And the fact is, as much as liberals hate "fat cat" business men, we desperately need them to lead our businesses. They're CEOs for a reason, because of their incredible work ethic, their intense innovation, and their ability to lead. Even if they are greedy as hell. Compare the effieciency of a sleek, streamlined corporation to an inefficient, slow moving government buearacracy and see what I mean.

You automatically assume that most people have a burning sense of idealism, altruism, and community, as well as a strong life's passion for some sort of occupation. However, the most of humanity simply doesn't function that way.

It would be nice to simply give everyone enough to live on and then allow them to pick their own "ideal" job, based on whatever their life's passion is. However, with people choosing their own jobs with no regards to the requirements to the economy, then the economy collapses. We need to have a certain number of business men, lawyers, doctors, farmers, and factory workers to survive. That's how the capitalist system works. If more workers are needed in an area, the wages rise and more people take the job.

If you want a historical example, the Soviet Union provides a perfect one. They had to become a police just to keep their population working. Infamous quotas had to be enforced just to be sure the population was working. So, the factory workers met the quotas to be sure they weren't arrested, but they almost never went over and their products were always shitty as hell.

So much for being driven by a burning life's passion

Ok. For starters, the idea that communism is amazing because everyone has enough to live relatively comfortably is COMPLETELY WRONG. This belief automatically assumes that there is enough to go around, when there actual isn't.

I'm sorry, what? You are aware, I hope, that in Western countries tremendous quantities of surplus food products are regularly destroyed so as not to bring the prices down and ruin producers? It's one of the many abberations of our system that we produce more than enough food to go around, but destroy a lot of it for purely economic reasons. (And then of course there's the meat industry, which is ridiculously wasteful in terms of agricultural production. Cut out meat, and the amount of food you can produce for human beings increases spectacularly.)

If you're speaking about food, you're obviousy wrong. And even if you weren't... your argument undermines capitalism, where consumerism encourages wasteful overconsumption of those very ressources which you say are not plentiful enough to go around.

First, there is the fact that any system that denies human nature cannot, therefore, represent humans.

I've addressed this "point" countless times over the past few days. I'm getting sick of repeating it. The fact that there have been and are societies functioning on the principles of reciprocity, mutual obligations and equal sharing -notably in the Pacific- proves that such a system does not "deny human nature". I'm aware that you were probably ignorant of this, but now you can no longer claim ignorance as an excuse.


There is also the fact that Communism takes away someone's natural right to private property. If you put effort into something, it's yours. That's a fundemental law of humanity.

There are "fundamental laws of humanity", are there? Where do those come from?


If you take the apple off the tree, that apples yours.

Not if the tree doesn't belong to you.

Besides, communism doesn't "take away" your right to private property. Let's try to overcome your ignorance, shall we?

Under socialism, there is common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Private property is not abolished. Your house is still yours, along with everything in it.

Once communism has been attained through evolution, there is a tendency to pool belongings into a loose form of common ownership. That doesn't mean your neighbours come and plunder your house. This is a hypothetical state of society in which it's theorised that members of the society are inclined to free sharing to a significant extent. Under the principles of evolutionary communism, there is no coercion involved. Just as, in real, existing "primitive communist" societies, sharing what you have is seen as "natural", with the knowledge that others will share with you too. I know that, with your extremely limited knowledge of foreign ways of life, this may seem difficult to grasp, but do make an effort if you want to be taken seriously.


Christianity also supports the idea of private property.

Four points:
1) So what? I'm not a Christian.
2) As I've already said, neither socialism nor communism seeks to deny private property.
3) Have you never heard of Christian Communism? I could point out, for example, that the population of Tokelau are devoutly Christian. And they practice free and equal sharing of ressources.
4) Eureka Australis has shown you how the Bible undermines your ignorant views.


In the New Testement, Jesus said "Give unto Ceasar what is his, and give unto God what is his."

Exactly. As I recall, that was Jesus' way of saying, "Stop grumbling about taxes, and just pay them."


There's also the fact that Marxism does not see the Proletariant and the Burgeoise as both humans. It sees them as seperate races, which is rediculous. But Marx believed that the Proletariant would not surcoumb to the pressures and power wanting that the Burgeouise did. However, both being human, they would both surcumb. (I still maintain the Burgeoise is great, I'm just saying how inherintly suicideal marxism is)
Also, communism will destroy itself. It doesn't create a classless society- from a great Anti-Communist song "Poverty for All," a lyric goes "The Proletarian's now the Red Burgeoise." all it does is replaces the ruling class with another ruling class, the Communists. And even if they were the majority, they were still a ruling class, and ruling classes don't give up power.

My god, how shockingly ignorant can you be?

The principle of a communist classless society goes as follows, in Marxist theory. The Proletariat becomes aware of its strength, organises, takes control. A classless society then evolves because all people become workers and productive members of society. The "idle classes" are absorbed into what was once the proletariat, resulting in a society of productive workers. Consequently, there are no more social classes. If you're going to comment on the theory, at least get it right.

Gradually, the State then withers away as it becomes an anachronism, and communism is attained. Communism is defined as a Stateless society. You may be startled to realise that, in a Stateless society based on autonomous communes and direct democracy, there is by definition no "ruling class".


DEATH TO MARXISM! DEATH TO MARXISM! DEATH TO MARXISM! LONG LIVE REAGAN! LONG LIVE DEMOCRACY! LONG LIVE CAPITALISM! LONG LIVE FREE SPEECH! YAY BUSH!

Personal Message to Karl Marx: :upyours:

Now, now. Why don't you take your medicine, and then let your mommy take you back to primary school? You may even learn how to spell "capitalism" there.

I'm sorry, what? You are aware, I hope, that in Western countries tremendous quantities of surplus food products are regularly destroyed so as not to bring the prices down and ruin producers? It's one of the many abberations of our system that we produce more than enough food to go around, but destroy a lot of it for purely economic reasons. (And then of course there's the meat industry, which is ridiculously wasteful in terms of agricultural production. Cut out meat, and the amount of food you can produce for human beings increases spectacularly.)

If you're speaking about food, you're obviousy wrong. And even if you weren't... your argument undermines capitalism, where consumerism encourages wasteful overconsumption of those very ressources which you say are not plentiful enough to go around.

Say wha--?? Western countries, surplus of food?? Have you ever been to Europe? Are you aware of their food production woes? Or do you live under a rock? The only western countries that happens to have a noticeable surplus of food is the United States and Canada, by a blessing of geography and relatively low population. It's no secret that California has the absolute richest farmland on the planet. In Europe, there is less food, encouraging the prices to go up, encouraging people to waste less. Capitalism at its finest.

Regardless, my argument doesn't undermine capitalism at all. Generally, there isn't enough of any particular resource to go around (with a few exceptions). Does capitalism allow for wasteful consumption? Yes, especially among the rich. But please reread my prior post. Wasteful consumption among the rich is required for the economy to function smoothly. If everybody wants to earn money (and therefore afford all their material dreams and be wasteful), then they have to work hard to achieve it. No matter how rich your country is in natural resources, farmland and the like, if your workers are unwilling to work (as in a communist system which lacks incentive to work) then it means NOTHING.

Wastefulness (or excessive amounts of cash) is therefore required as an incentive to make people work harder, therefore putting more goods on the market, therefore allowing people to be a bit more wasteful.

That being said, I am against excessive wastefulness, and against CEOs who bleed their workers dry in the quest for higher profits. As the Great Depression illustrates, that is phenominally unhealthy for the economy, and does require some regulation.

I took off your first point because Ariddia already addressed it.

Playing into our earlier discussion, people simply don't work if they don't have enough incentives. Why should anyone go the extra mile if they don't recieve anything for it? Yes, there are a few very idealistic people who work because they love the system, or work because they simply love what they do (like artists, and the like). Indeed. Communism would maximize the ability of people to do what it is that they love to do.

But most of humanity simply doesn't function that way. Scientists become scientists because they love what they do (usually), but they are mainly in it for the fame. Businessmen, lawyers, or doctors may love what they do, but they do largely what they do because of money.Largely? Perhaps. Exclusively? Hardly not. There are lawyers and doctors who do pro bono work.

And the fact is, as much as liberals hate "fat cat" business men, we desperately need them to lead our businesses. They're CEOs for a reason, because of their incredible work ethic, their intense innovation, and their ability to lead. Even if they are greedy as hell. Compare the effieciency of a sleek, streamlined corporation to an inefficient, slow moving government buearacracy and see what I mean.Ugh. I'll take the "inefficient" worker-owned cooperative, thank you.

You automatically assume that most people have a burning sense of idealism, altruism, and community, as well as a strong life's passion for some sort of occupation. However, the most of humanity simply doesn't function that way. Most people do have a strong life's passion for some sort of occupation. I don't assume people have a burning sense of those other three, but since communism seems to be in the best interests of the majority, I would assume that the majority of people would do what's in their best interest, even if doing so coincides with that an altruistic person might do.

It would be nice to simply give everyone enough to live on and then allow them to pick their own "ideal" job, based on whatever their life's passion is. However, with people choosing their own jobs with no regards to the requirements to the economy, then the economy collapses. I didn't say there would be no regards to the requirements to the economy, however the economy would be geared towards helping people choose their ideal jobs.
This might require educating people so that they have the ability to do a particular job.

We need to have a certain number of business men, lawyers, doctors, farmers, and factory workers to survive. That's how the capitalist system works. If more workers are needed in an area, the wages rise and more people take the job.But we don't need to have as many as we do in a capitalist system.

If you want a historical example, the Soviet Union provides a perfect one. They had to become a police just to keep their population working. Infamous quotas had to be enforced just to be sure the population was working. So, the factory workers met the quotas to be sure they weren't arrested, but they almost never went over and their products were always shitty as hell.

So much for being driven by a burning life's passionThe Soviet Union assigned people jobs. It was hardly up to them what they wanted to do.

Wastefulness (or excessive amounts of cash) is therefore required as an incentive to make people work harder, therefore putting more goods on the market, therefore allowing people to be a bit more wasteful.But if people aren't being wasteful, then there doesn't need to be as many goods on the market, which means people don't have to work as hard.

Say wha--?? Western countries, surplus of food?? Have you ever been to Europe?

See that location tag on the left of my post?


The only western countries that happens to have a noticeable surplus of food is the United States and Canada, by a blessing of geography and relatively low population.

Admittedly I was thinking of North America when I wrote that. My point still stands within that context.


Regardless, my argument doesn't undermine capitalism at all. Generally, there isn't enough of any particular resource to go around (with a few exceptions). Does capitalism allow for wasteful consumption? Yes, especially among the rich. But please reread my prior post. Wasteful consumption among the rich is required for the economy to function smoothly. If everybody wants to earn money (and therefore afford all their material dreams and be wasteful), then they have to work hard to achieve it.


How is that an "economy running smoothly", when you have wastage at the top and -by your own admission- dire lack at the bottom? The purpose of any economy should be ensuring that every member of society contributes and has access, in exchange, to the basic necessities at least.


No matter how rich your country is in natural resources, farmland and the like, if your workers are unwilling to work (as in a communist system which lacks incentive to work) then it means NOTHING.


As I've already explained, communism would only be sustainable following a significant evolution in our ways of living and thinking. So if you believe you're refuting some point of mine, you must have misread.

I should add that existing societies based on reciprocity and sharing do (obviously) function. How? In some cases, based on tradition, born of necessity. Sharing made sense to ensure everyone's survival and well-being. In other cases, in Melanesia, producing surplus and sharing it is a requirement in order to gain prestige and influence. Furthermore, everybody works and contributes because it's expected of them, and that's how it's always been.


That being said, I am against excessive wastefulness, and against CEOs who bleed their workers dry in the quest for higher profits. As the Great Depression illustrates, that is phenominally unhealthy for the economy, and does require some regulation.

It's not only unhealthy for the economy; it's unhealthy for those who are being bled dry.

I feel its the other way round, big governments rely if not completely depend on their free market/capitalist elements to work. I don't feel that there has really ever been a true free market economy yet, so we can't know. It's plain to me however, that the amount of efficient and rich economies seem proportional to the more capitalist economies.


If you were right, if government needed 'a free market' to work, then there could not be a government that was NOT 'free market-y' and yet worked.

So the question is - for all of it's economic failings, for all of Stalinism or Maoism... did the authoritarian regimes of Red China of the USSR 'work'? As governments.



What would need to happen before the economy is good?

Everyone having sufficient would be a good start.

That is the most retarded mentality ever. Someone should waste all their time making something for the satisfaction of having it creating? Without extra rewards like money or fame no one would ever make anything. Do you seriously want to invest all your time and money to make a bank with no returns except the satisfaction that you created a bank?? Yeah, that's very rewarding.

Curious... I'm unsure if you are aware that most of the great cultural and scientific advances... a great deal of our greatest architecture... are all creations that were spawned by a desire to create.

Sure, some people have got rich from their 'art'. Some people have got rich from their 'science'. But whenyou tend to look at artistic, cultural, scientific, technological leaps - you are usually looking at passion, not pursuit of currency.

Every person you named (except for me) was an artist. Artists tend to be a little loony, and are generally more concerned with spreading their message than with making money. That's why they're artists. For the rest of the population, something a lot more tangible is needed. Yeah, I can write a post without you paying me to do it. But, create an international business and get paid nothing extra? Hell no.

If you want a historical arguement to back my point up, while the founding fathers were creating the constitution, they were split between whether they should give the president a salary or not. They ultimately decided to give the president a salary, because satisfaction with leading the country is an insufficient reward and a weak incentive in attractive people to office.

Or, should I put it this way? Would you become president of the US and get paid in nothing but the satisfaction that you are fulfilling your patriotic duty?

If you say yes, then I'll say you're lying.

I wonder when was the last time someone got paid MORE for the Presidency, than they spent obtaining the office...

Well, he's being purposely obtuse. On my read, however, I'm not sure I'd dignify his evasions with the aura of actual purpose. ;)

Cute.

Did you have anything worthwhile to say, any response to anything I said, or are you just going to attack me vicariously without contributing to the discussion?

You are bringing nothing to the table.

Say wha--?? Western countries, surplus of food?? Have you ever been to Europe? Are you aware of their food production woes? Or do you live under a rock? The only western countries that happens to have a noticeable surplus of food is the United States and Canada, by a blessing of geography and relatively low population.

Untrue - and already addressed, I see.

Most of us that are Europeans are aware of a long istory of European countries destroying, stockpiling, or otherwise wasting food to prop markets and cover up for the biggest problem one finds in un-controlled farming... duplication of effort.

I'm just going to make one point here, not wade into the whole debate.

I contend that there is a valid economic incentive to work in a Communist society. I should first define that by Communism I mean "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs." Not necessarily equality - he who needs more, gets more, but fair nonetheless.

It is commonly argued that there is no incentive to work in this sort of system. There is, and this is why.

Due to the community nature of the system, and the benefits derived by each person from the survival of the community as a whole, it benefits each member to do what they can for the group.

For example, consider a group of about 50 people, organised according to this principle. I might have trained extensively to become skilled at first aid and general medical work. My incentive for doing this is to help ensure the health of those who I work with - my comrades in this. They might do other things, one could, for instance, be excellent at baking. While he spent less time training, he is doing what he enjoys for the group, and if he accidentally breaks his leg, I do what I can to make sure the group keep him around.

The incentive to work, therefore, is not for wages, but for the survival and cohesion of the group as a whole.

Does this make sense?

I'm just going to make one point here, not wade into the whole debate.

I contend that there is a valid economic incentive to work in a Communist society. I should first define that by Communism I mean "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs." Not necessarily equality - he who needs more, gets more, but fair nonetheless.

It is commonly argued that there is no incentive to work in this sort of system. There is, and this is why.

Due to the community nature of the system, and the benefits derived by each person from the survival of the community as a whole, it benefits each member to do what they can for the group.

For example, consider a group of about 50 people, organised according to this principle. I might have trained extensively to become skilled at first aid and general medical work. My incentive for doing this is to help ensure the health of those who I work with - my comrades in this. They might do other things, one could, for instance, be excellent at baking. While he spent less time training, he is doing what he enjoys for the group, and if he accidentally breaks his leg, I do what I can to make sure the group keep him around.

The incentive to work, therefore, is not for wages, but for the survival and cohesion of the group as a whole.

Does this make sense?

Cool sig. :)

Not only does it make sense, it is pretty much how our military, for example, works.

It makes perfect sense, and it's more or less how it actually does work in some societies today.

"Sense" is a pinko communist delusion. There is no making sense in our glorious capitalism. :p

I'm just going to make one point here, not wade into the whole debate.

I contend that there is a valid economic incentive to work in a Communist society. I should first define that by Communism I mean "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs." Not necessarily equality - he who needs more, gets more, but fair nonetheless.

It is commonly argued that there is no incentive to work in this sort of system. There is, and this is why.

Due to the community nature of the system, and the benefits derived by each person from the survival of the community as a whole, it benefits each member to do what they can for the group.

For example, consider a group of about 50 people, organised according to this principle. I might have trained extensively to become skilled at first aid and general medical work. My incentive for doing this is to help ensure the health of those who I work with - my comrades in this. They might do other things, one could, for instance, be excellent at baking. While he spent less time training, he is doing what he enjoys for the group, and if he accidentally breaks his leg, I do what I can to make sure the group keep him around.

The incentive to work, therefore, is not for wages, but for the survival and cohesion of the group as a whole.

Does this make sense?

It makes perfect sense, and it's more or less how it actually does work in some societies today.

If an idea does not work in reality, then it a stupid idea.

Blaming reality "people are too greedy/power motivated/etc" for the failing of the idea is like blaming the collapse of a poorly engineered bridge on "steel is too weak- but the design is perfect!" A design must accomodate the strengths and weaknesses of the elements it must incorporate!

But that doesn't make it evil.

Now, using violence and/or deceit to force others to follow a stupid idea, THAT is evil.

That would be like forcing people to drive across a bridge designed without any appreciation of the actual materials used in the construction.

Ergo, Communism is not evil. Communists are.

If an idea does not work in reality, then it a stupid idea.

Blaming reality "people are too greedy/power motivated/etc" for the failing of the idea is like blaming the collapse of a poorly engineered bridge on "steel is too weak- but the design is perfect!" A design must accomodate the strengths and weaknesses of the elements it must incorporate!

But that doesn't make it evil.

Now, using violence and/or deceit to force others to follow a stupid idea, THAT is evil.

That would be like forcing people to drive across a bridge designed without any appreciation of the actual materials used in the construction.

Ergo, Communism is not evil. Communists are.

Ergo, Capitalism is not evil. Capitalists are. I got it, right?


People who do evil things are evil, perhaps... that might be a realistic one. By which logic there are a lot of evil people in any political, religious or economic model, and a lot of un-evil ones.

I just had a thought, actually.

For those who consider communism a flawed concept...

...how could you make it fixed?


Not a trite answer like 'make it capitalism'. It's a serious question - can you actually envision a methodology by which communism CAN be made to work?

Porsche. If not the pinnacle of automotive engineering, reasonably close to it.

Trabant: the infamous "tin chipmunk" of the GDR.

Nothing more need be said.

OK, a little more. Before they are lost in the forgotten archives of history; a few of the many Trabant Jokes that flourished during it's smelly two-stroke heyday, in communist east Germany:

Man goes into auto parts store: "Can I get windshield wipers for a Trabant"?
Store keeper: "It's a fair trade".

How do you double the value of a Trabant?
Fill up the tank.

How do you triple the value?
Fill it up, put a bag of groceries on the seat next to you.

Why is owner's manual so thick?
The last 50 pages are bus schedules.

Why does it take only 2 workers to build a Trabant?
One cuts, one glues.

What's the latest innovation on the newest Trabants?
Rear Bumper Warmer.
What's that for?
Keeps your hands warm.

What comes with the Sports Model?
Sneakers in the trunk.

Does the Trabant come with a Stereo?
You don't need it. In a communist country you always here the same thing from all sides anyway.

Man complains to Trabant dealer: "Every day I have to drive up the hill on Oldendorf road to get home, and this Trabant won't get past 70!"
Dealer: "So, 70 uphill is really good for a Trabant."
Man: "But I live at number 90!"

I think communism is a great idea. You can't be born into a rich class that will stay rich and you can't be born in a poor class that will stay poor. Most of the people say communism hasn't worked. But China and Russia aren't or weren't real communist states; the government was as greedy as the capitalist governments. But let's have a look at the capitalistic system: let's have a look at america. Oh, I hate this damn state. Do you know about the cruelty done to animals? The pollution? The religious fanatism? The war? Soldiers are called heroes. America is as bad as China, and while China isn't a real communist country, the USA is a REAL capitalistic one: that's the theory of capitalism.

Ergo, Capitalism is not evil. Capitalists are. I got it, right?
.

Not ergo. We use "Ergo" when one thing proves another. I am talking about communists, it has nothing to do with capitalists. It is like me saying saying "Birds fly" and you saying "ergo fish also fly".

Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate has some excellent discussion of just what it is in Human nature that makes communism a structurally flawed system, from the psychologist point of view. Among them, for example, a built in, evolved preference for our own children over the children of others. Every mammal has it- but applied to a communist system, it makes a real mess.

But China and Russia aren't or weren't real communist states; the government was as greedy as the capitalist governments. America is as bad as China, and while China isn't a real communist country, the USA is a REAL capitalistic one: that's the theory of capitalism.

Quite the contrary. The Chinese government is EXACTLY what a "real" communist government looks like. Real people doing real things that real people do. It is the fantasy that isn't real.

I suppose, in a "real" communist government, the police would ride unicorns.

As for American being as bad as China... what's the going market rate to be smuggled into China?

And as for America being a ideologically pure state... you've got to be kidding.

But you made one really important note: The Chinese government is as greedy as ours. Hmmm... two very different cultures, no common history, two different economic systems... and yet the people behave the SAME WAY. Think about that. Is it possible that people act the way they do, even in the absence of any common variable... because that's what people do? And if that's what people do, isn't it really stupid to propose a system in which they don't?

Quite the contrary. The Chinese government is EXACTLY what a "real" communist government looks like. Real people doing real things that real people do. It is the fantasy that isn't real.

I suppose, in a "real" communist government, the police would ride unicorns.

As for American being as bad as China... what's the going market rate to be smuggled into China?

And as for America being a ideologically pure state... you've got to be kidding.

But you made one really important note: The Chinese government is as greedy as ours. Hmmm... two very different cultures, no common history, two different economic systems... and yet the people behave the SAME WAY. Think about that. Is it possible that people act the way they do, even in the absence of any common variable... because that's what people do? And if that's what people do, isn't it really stupid to propose a system in which they don't?

You, my dear sir, should read the thread before making any sort of stupid proclamation about Communism requiring governments.

just what it is in Human nature that makes communism a structurally flawed system, from the psychologist point of view.

I've disproved this so many times that I'm REALLY getting tired of repeating it.

If you define communism as a society based on reciprocity, mutual assistance / dependence and equal sharing, such societies exist. How can an existing human society, which has existed for thousands of years, be against "human nature"?

You, my dear sir, should read the thread before making any sort of stupid proclamation about Communism requiring governments.

Indeed. Depressing, isn't it?

You are bringing nothing to the table.I can't believe it took so many words to say that.

Did it make you feel better?

I live to serve. ;)

I've disproved this so many times that I'm REALLY getting tired of repeating it.

If you define communism as a society based on reciprocity, mutual assistance / dependence and equal sharing, such societies exist. How can an existing human society, which has existed for thousands of years, be against "human nature"?

You see, those aren't actually people. Actual people only live in westernized societies. Anyone who doesn't is a lesser person, who obviously needs to be westernized for their own good. We're really only doing them a favor by forcing them into a system which destroys their livelihood.

And as the Spanish Revolution showed, you get the crap beaten out of you if you don't have strong leadership, because a strong leadership leads to a much more unified, powerful force.
...which is what we should all aim for? Unified and powerful forces are always the ones who start wars - sissy parliamentary federations and republics tend to just negotiate and concentrate on welfare...

The only reason that the Republicans didn't get completely mauled within about 10 minutes is because the Marxist-Leninists had a decent power structure that gave a small group of people wide-ranging military command.

Utter bullshit. In every single occasion, during the first couple of days, when government gave weapons to workers to fight the nationalists, the latter were defeated or disarmed. Both major labour unions, especially the anarchist CNT, were quick and efficient in their response to the military coup, without anything that could be called "strong leadership".
However, the rather conservative mayors and other bureaucrats mostly refused to give weapons to the workers, which resulted in the Nationalists having time to affirm their position and gain strength, which ultimately led to the fascist victory. Through the whole war, Durruti Column and other Anarchist (F.A.I-C.N.T) and Libertanian Communist (P.O.U.M) militias fought with bravery and distinction, while sticking with their principals.

I just had a thought, actually.

For those who consider communism a flawed concept...

...how could you make it fixed?


Not a trite answer like 'make it capitalism'. It's a serious question - can you actually envision a methodology by which communism CAN be made to work?

Hmm...

Well, I could see it work possibly maybe if we found away to get unlimited resources of fuel, materials and money. But many might find that kind of life just a bit boring. Thats the only thing I can really think of tbh.

You see, those aren't actually people. Actual people only live in westernized societies. Anyone who doesn't is a lesser person, who obviously needs to be westernized for their own good. We're really only doing them a favor by forcing them into a system which destroys their livelihood.

Heh. Naturally. How could that not have occured to me?

I've disproved this so many times that I'm REALLY getting tired of repeating it.

If you define communism as a society based on reciprocity, mutual assistance / dependence and equal sharing, such societies exist. How can an existing human society, which has existed for thousands of years, be against "human nature"?

I've seen your examples before, and they are firstly:

1) Basically small tribal societies, and would plainly not work for a population for above 10,000

2) Gift economies, which are nothing like communism, and more like capitalism without currency.

I've seen your examples before, and they are firstly:

1) Basically small tribal societies, and would plainly not work for a population for above 10,000

2) Gift economies, which are nothing like communism, and more like capitalism without currency.

1) this is an entirely different argument from that which keeps on getting presented here, that "human nature makes communism a structurally flawed system", which is what the examples are used to disprove.

2) gift economies = capitalism = hilarious!
would you mind explaining to us what makes gift economies not like communism and lots like capitalism?

1) Basically small tribal societies, and would plainly not work for a population for above 10,000

I never claimed it would. I was debunking the absurd claim that societies based on reciprocity and sharing went against "human nature".

I should also point out that the Marxist notion of communism was premised on that disappearance of the national State (and the very concept of "nation", in fact) to be replaced by small communes.


2) Gift economies, which are nothing like communism, and more like capitalism without currency.

It's rather more complex than that. They're not exactly communist in a Marxist sense, but nor can you call them "capitalist without currency". Plus, there's significant diversity between these systems. Papuan societies are not really the same as Tokelauan ones - and both of those differ from pre-colonial Maori concepts of "reciprocity", for example.

Although I'd be curious to see how you define capitalism - and especially "capitalism without currency".

The main thing is, they are being awarded for work, whether the award is karma, or food.

who is?

It's rather more complex than that. They're not exactly communist in a Marxist sense, but nor can you call them "capitalist without currency". Plus, there's significant diversity between these systems. Papuan societies are not really the same as Tokelauan ones - and both of those differ from pre-colonial Maori concepts of "reciprocity", for example.

Although I'd be curious to see how you define capitalism - and especially "capitalism without currency".

The main thing is, they are being awarded for work, whether the award is karma, or food.

Eventually money evolves out of this if the society gets bigger, to represent a general value of worth, because payments of short lasting items like food becomes more insufficient when the demand for work increases.

The main thing is, they are being awarded for work, whether the award is karma, or food.


I assume you mean "rewarded". And I don't see how this alters anything.

Also, in many cases, you work because you've been taught that you have an obligation to do so. Because that's the way society works.


Eventually money evolves out of this if the society gets bigger, to represent a general value of worth, because payments of short lasting items like food becomes more insufficient when the demand for work increases.

That's beside the point, though. My point relates to small-scale societies. Communism has always been intended for communes.

I think communism is a great idea. You can't be born into a rich class that will stay rich and you can't be born in a poor class that will stay poor. Most of the people say communism hasn't worked. But China and Russia aren't or weren't real communist states; the government was as greedy as the capitalist governments. But let's have a look at the capitalistic system: let's have a look at america. Oh, I hate this damn state. Do you know about the cruelty done to animals? The pollution? The religious fanatism? The war? Soldiers are called heroes. America is as bad as China, and while China isn't a real communist country, the USA is a REAL capitalistic one: that's the theory of capitalism.

But if you live under communism, it gives you no oppertunity to become sucessfull or an individual, because the government "controls your life for your well being".

And America may be greedy, but that is the freedom of the capitalistic society, you can and are allowed to be greedy, no matter how many people may scream and shout at you.

Define a "real" communism.

Not ergo. We use "Ergo" when one thing proves another. I am talking about communists, it has nothing to do with capitalists. It is like me saying saying "Birds fly" and you saying "ergo fish also fly".

Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate has some excellent discussion of just what it is in Human nature that makes communism a structurally flawed system, from the psychologist point of view. Among them, for example, a built in, evolved preference for our own children over the children of others. Every mammal has it- but applied to a communist system, it makes a real mess.

Your 'argument' was constructed on the basis that 'evil' was - not the model, but how it was applied, yes?

Didn't you (basically) specifically say that it was the violence or deceit that was the evil?

Thus - my 'ergo' is not only reference to your own, but also a logical deduction of the same construction.

I have no idea who this 'Steven Pinker' is, but he sounds like a dumbass, I'm afraid. He seems to have ignored thousands of years of step-parenting, adoption, extended families, unrelated 'aunts' and 'uncles', conclaves, collectives, creches and god-children to try to find an evidence to claim as a flaw.

But if you live under communism, it gives you no oppertunity to become sucessfull or an individual, because the government "controls your life for your well being".


Only in authoritarian communisms.

Even 'authoritarianism' has degrees. A government (communist or capitalist) could be very authoritarian about... say, economy... whilst being non-interventionist on... say, social issues.

So - I guess your initial statement is built not just upon one flawed assumption, but a flawed assumption upon a flawed assumption.


And America may be greedy, but that is the freedom of the capitalistic society, you can and are allowed to be greedy, no matter how many people may scream and shout at you.


Should we encourage bad behaviour? Does it become good behaviour if 'we' do it?


Define a "real" communism.

Shouldn't that have been your opening gambit?

Hmm...

Well, I could see it work possibly maybe if we found away to get unlimited resources of fuel, materials and money. But many might find that kind of life just a bit boring. Thats the only thing I can really think of tbh.

Wouldn't 'money' be irrelevent in most models?

Why would you need unlimited resources? It seems to me that communism has been most successful when applied in exactly the opposite situations.

My initial thought on 'making it work' would be to rationalise it 'within' a capitalistic nation - form collectives that interact with one another and the market, but that are operated on basically communistic principles internally - and I'm thinking Israel has been doing this for quite some time...

Done right, the 'capitalist' economy would become just the net that held together a wealth of smaller communist economies - a mechanism for exchange... kind of like a cell membrane.

Within each cell - collectivisation could mean the greatest power to trade outside the cell... a mechanism for economy-of-scale, for strength-in-numbers representation (a la unions), a representational identity. I'm hard pressed to find a flaw.

But if you live under communism, it gives you no oppertunity to become sucessfull or an individual, because the government "controls your life for your well being".


There is no government in communism. You're confused.

Wouldn't 'money' be irrelevent in most models?

Why would you need unlimited resources? It seems to me that communism has been most successful when applied in exactly the opposite situations.

My initial thought on 'making it work' would be to rationalise it 'within' a capitalistic nation - form collectives that interact with one another and the market, but that are operated on basically communistic principles internally - and I'm thinking Israel has been doing this for quite some time...

Done right, the 'capitalist' economy would become just the net that held together a wealth of smaller communist economies - a mechanism for exchange... kind of like a cell membrane.

Within each cell - collectivisation could mean the greatest power to trade outside the cell... a mechanism for economy-of-scale, for strength-in-numbers representation (a la unions), a representational identity. I'm hard pressed to find a flaw.Sounds something like mutualism.

Centralisation has been common to Marxism inspired communist states, as has some avriant on the Communist Party idea. Neither is required.


The vast majority of people were better off after the Communist Revolution than before it. People point to Stalin's paranoia - but that is a problem with Stalinism, not with communism. People point to the famines in the 20's... but a quick look back over Russian history shows that famines are cyclic.

Is 'lack of choice' worse than lack of food? Really?

I will shortly address those two points.
First: Yes, it's not required. But that is theory. In theory also Capitalism is very good, and nobody should have lack of food (unless they want so). In practice the largest example and (probably) closest to success of communism implementation was USSR. Which demonstrated need for significant central government doing the planning.

And your second point: "Is 'lack of choice' worse than lack of food? Really?"

Yes. Because in our dear capitalism you can choose to have a lack of food (you don't work, you don't want to work and then cannot afford food) or not.

In Communism you cannot choose that. And there was shortages of food in USSR due to inefficient central planning (and corruption and lack of motivation in planning executors) even in eighties. I remember when all my neighbourhood run to the store, when there was gossip that some product has appeared. I was standing for hours and hours in queues just to buy 1 kilo of sugar (because 1 kg/person was allowed limit) that had finally appeared in store.

I believe that resource distribution system that is based on competition (Capitalism) is more efficient than one that is based on selflessness (Communism). I believe that Communism has failed.

And I will just share one quite old joke illustrating my point:
Back in USSR there is presentation for people from Communist party. The presenter is telling about all good things that will happen, improvements, developments and proudly claims that in 2015 when the true Communism will be achieved, every one will own a helicopter. Old lady stands up from the crowd and says "Dear boy, what use that helicopter can be for such old bugger like me". Presenter without pause explains "Lady, it will be very useful. For example, if you hear that there is sausages available to buy in Moscow, you can fly straight there and buy them."