Communism Can Work

**Anarchist** · 13th February 2004, 01:58 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bayou)
The fallacy comes from the word: "free market". Nature in general is a highly integrated whole that is not a free system, it is a complex collection of regulating systems that create stability. A market on a small scale might seem free but as capitalism expands it will run into environmental barriers that cannot be exceeded: regulation is inneviteable in one form or another. Whether it is nature liquidating humanity or humanity regulating itself is what is the final question we must answer.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What does that have to do with the fact that extortion is wrong? Would you mind breaking that paragraph down and translating it into something that doesn't sound like bullshit? "Whether it is nature liquidating humanity or humanity regulating itself is what is the final question we must answer." <---what the hell is that? We must answer? In order to...what?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Sorry to break up that utopic dream of yours, regulations are inneviteable.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Regulations imposed by what on who?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Have you been reading the debate here, According to Apetberg and JacknBeans that is supposedly the nature of government.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I don't believe in "government." Either does Jackney. Why would we go about ascribing characteristics to something that you haven't even proved exists yet?

**LiveAndLetLive** · 14th February 2004, 05:40 AM

It depends entirely on what you mean by "work." My view is that a system does not "work" if any of the parts of the system are coerced or otherwise threatened with violence. For me, peace and freedom are required preconditions for any social structure. Or, as Jefferson put it, a recognition of the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If each member of a community chooses to pursue happiness by renouncing property and the rights to accumulate property, then, yes, that works. But the moment that ANY member of the community disagrees and is denied those rights, we then have coercion, and then the system does not work. For, to deny one means to deny all, if there's to be any consistency in a system.

**MiniPhreek** · 14th February 2004, 02:01 PM

I think it's Importent to make the distiction between what most of us commanly refer to as Communisum and Marxism. It is My interpratation of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, that he did not intend it to be a State Capitilism or Beurocratic Dictatorship, nor did he intend it to be anarcaic sociaity with no instatutions. when we point the soviet union as an example of communism, we are actully pointing to an example of Stalinism or state capitilism (as refered to by most trotsckyits) Marxism is the term now more oftin afiliated with the ideas of workers democrocy and international socialism. in fact the only example i can think of of this kind of system ever even being tried was in Barsolona, Spain in 1936-37, have a peek at George Orwells acount of the spanish civil war in his book homage to catalonia, just so you know Barsolona remained a workers democrocy up until the Soviet Communist party took complete control of the republican forces and then eventully leading to Franco's Facists winning the war. Any way getting back to Marx, in several instances through out his works and teaching he makes the most crutial point of how Marxism is to 'work' and that is that it is a Global Commitment, it will only work as described by Marx if the entire world were to agree to it. not lickly to happan in our life time, but if the human race finally gets it's head out of its ass, it's the only thing that will save us. so now we get to how a workers democrocy is implimented. well the global government would lickly be elected in much the same way the EU parliment is elected with some diferences, members are elected by Proportinal Represantation by region, to form a governing council, the parliment would elect a chair and speaker and aproprite ministers and wouls serve in the best interests of the people and not the personal ambitions of the governing party. then you have what are called soviets, witch is actully just the russian word for council, these would generaly be inplace of what are now manisible governments, what they are, are councils of elected represintives from every workplace in a community, now before Stalin Liquidated them, the soviet union had 3 diferent kinds of soviets, workers soviets, farmers soviets and solders soviets. the soviet acts as both government and managment for the community, all of the soviets members are subject to recall at any time by the workers they reprisent. now if you understude all that and you want to learn more about all the details, ideas and practices of a international socialist sociaty, i sugest you check out www.marxist.com

oh and if any of you were interested my name is Derek i'm 18 years old from Ontario Canada and i'm a member of the New Democratic Party of Canada

**TANSTAAFL** · 14th February 2004, 02:37 PM

I think this village is a perfect example of how collectivism ultimately does work to make everyone equally dirt-poor. Here is a village that has no modern conveniences, no advanced medicine, primitive and uncomfortable housing - the people are just scratching to survive. They are ignorant of the wealth, productivity and comfort the rest of the world enjoys. And in this state they are blissful.

I am always intriged that those who are propontents of communitarian beliefs seem to want equality with those that have more but never consider that they would likely have far less in their "ideal" world. How many would like to take an equal share and live in that village in China?

**MiniPhreek** · 14th February 2004, 03:00 PM

"They are ignorant of the wealth, productivity and comfort the rest of the world enjoys."

i find it interesting that you would make this point considering that 2/3 of this planets population have not made something so simple as a phone call! and then theres the fact that thousands of people that die every day in afraca from Sarvation! I think you better move beyond your little eurocentric bubble before you make anymore acusations like that. to be perfectly fair it would require aprox 3 more earths in order to have everone living at the same standard as those in the west. personaly i'm not greedy nor am i ignorent, and i'd be willing to give up some of my creature comforts that you seem to take for granted, so that all 6 billion people can have proper housing education and healthcare. by the way have you ever heard of the maslo hirarchy of needs, as i see it these chinise have everything they need at there stage of develpment.

**Toussaint** · 15th February 2004, 03:13 AM

Ummm... why is this place considered "communist"? People help others build their lives back up after calamities in non-communist societies. Such examples are prevalent in America for one, when where people donate millions for disaster relief, which arrives well before any relief promised by the government ("public" plunder).

And the farmer whom was interviewed in the story, he gave the fruits of his labor- his property- to others in the village. Did they have a right to his property? Sure doesn't sound like it- or else he wouldn't really be "giving" the food to them, it would already be theirs.

I think to call this village "communist" is a complete mischaracterization.

**LiveAndLetLive** · 15th February 2004, 05:22 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (MiniPhreek,)
It is My interpratation of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, that he did not intend it to be a State Capitilism or Beurocratic Dictatorship, nor did he intend it to be anarcaic sociaity with no instatutions. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Mini,

Admittedly, it's been a long time since I read Marx, but I don't believe you are correct here. Did he not call for State to "wither away"?

Marx seemed to want to change human nature, violently, and then when selfishness was no longer part of human nature, then the State would not be necessary. Ultimately, I agree that human nature could use some fixing, but this should be more about acting peacefully, not unselfishly, as it is currently understood. Marx seemed to miss a key to human nature, which is the inherently corrupting nature of power, that is, force. Power is like a drug, and the addicts, the politicians and bureaucrats, won't give it up willingly once they are hooked. That's why Marxism does not work.

RE: TANSTAAFL's point that a "collectivist" community is poor in terms of material things, that's likely true. But if material poverty is the choice of all, why should we be concerned? Some don't care about gadgets and food so much. If they are "pursuing happiness" peacefully and voluntarily, that's their choice, no?

**FreedomFirst** · 16th February 2004, 10:58 AM

Phreek - The problem with Marxism is that it cannot manifest itself into anything but Trotskyism or Stalinism. Certainly, on paper it appears as an anarchistic system of equality/etc, but when you try to create a society around it, you'll find yourself drawn toward central planning, either that or your people will embrace libertarianism before you get the chance.

**Jackney Sneeb** · 17th February 2004, 07:01 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (MiniPhreek,)
personaly i'm not greedy nor am i ignorent, and i'd be willing to give up some of my creature comforts that you seem to take for granted, so that all 6 billion people can have proper housing education and healthcare.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Let us know when you have given them up.

--Jackney Sneeb

**castille** · 17th February 2004, 09:04 AM

Most Communist-like villages are extremely conservative.

So liberals arent welcome.

**Bayou** · 19th February 2004, 06:44 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille)
Most Communist-like villages are extremely conservative.
So liberals arent welcome<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Well anything that is closer to communism wouldnt have a political spectrum to categorize those people in the 1st place, thus they would have elements that could be considered "conservative" while elements that would be considered "liberal".
It all has to do with environment of such a culture, since liberlisation has as much to do with having so many cultures interacting with each other on daily basis in the world- liberalisation is the natural outcome of such environment.

But anyways, back to the fray........
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Freedom1st)
Phreek - The problem with Marxism is that it cannot manifest itself into anything but Trotskyism or Stalinism. Certainly, on paper it appears as an anarchistic system of equality/etc, but when you try to create a society around it, you'll find yourself drawn toward central planning, either that or your people will embrace libertarianism before you get the chance.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Wait a minute, I thought the whole argument before hand has been that capitalism cannot turn into anything but Stalinism- which I guess would make you a trotskiast of capitalism then.....for if you can point out any nation that adopted Trotskiasm form of communism, I will find you a free market without a government........
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (L$Live)
Admittedly, it's been a long time since I read Marx, but I don't believe you are correct here. Did he not call for State to "wither away"?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Yes he did, as in a progressive evolution towards a form of government in that the citizen can represent himself in government.
the main point of marx is that Capitalism NEEDS government to regulate it, thus he is saying that the state will never whither away with the capitalist system in use, which is why he is calling for capitalism to be replaced.
It is the common goal of the communists and anarchists, though their methods are a matter of aesthetics.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ( Tousaint)
Ummm... why is this place considered "communist"?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Because people share in this small communal system, something that is missing from the capitalist system.

Miniphreek, thank you for elaborating on the differences beetween the russian solution to implenting a communist theory and Marxists original theory of communism.
Good to see another knowledgeable communist NDP member, actually nice to see so many canadians now to, I voted in you political questionaire...if only internet polls would result like federal polls.....
Though I am kinda sad you didnt include a communist option, but included the "green" party, I mean comon, thats basically the NDP now that Jack Layton is at the helm.
Anyways back to the main responses to me in chronological order.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (freedom1st)
Who controls production and consumption? The proletariat? And how, exactly, would they control society?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Culture and environment controls the soceity, the proletariate being part of a society in turn controls production and consumption based on goals and needs of the culture and moderated by the stability and limits of the environmental whole.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (freedom1st)
So you're telling me that you wouldn't mandate participation in this society?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Nice dodge, just answer the question: how is volunteerism not part of the communist system I am describing?
Tell me if you need more elaboration on this subject, I remember you have a penchance for brief explanations.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (freedom1st)
Look closer. Big business leaders were the ones who pushed for government regulation. Government control of money caused the great depression. In a free market a monopoly cannot exist, it's like hitting the speed of light in modern physics, because in a free market a big business model is far more inefficient than a small business model, this is why big business lobbied for the government to regulate and control the market<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Well theirs This guy sayin this and This guy saying that how come I cant say both are right?
Both shed a different light on the same subject, though they have different solutions to the same problem, one was taken and economic prosperity eventually came about.
I would be particularily interested in you rebuking the point claiming that "volunteerism" was partly to blame for the collapse of the market.
You can keep talking about your free market, but it has never existed and only remains a theory- unlike the speed of light which is reached by every photon created if left to its natural state.
From a purely scientific point of view, REALITY would suggest that capitalism is not sustainable and only marginaly sustainablity with current regulation: marx goes into depth why this is so.
The capitalist systems values are not based on reality, they are based on placing value on work and making it interchangeable with the commoditee that it is made or aquired with.
Unlike with nature, this commoditee has no value seperate from its work value.
That is inherently why capitalism without regulation is not sustainable, because whether it be large corporations or a whole bunch of seperate ones, it cannot represent the complexity of the natural world and it only does a marginal job describing the human one.
The argument would go to whether Capitalism would merely burn itself out that much faster without regulation to begin with.
And history has told us that without pressure from the proletariate or the government itself, a business will not change its practice.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (freedom1st)
I don't think corporations should share rights. I believe in businesses being insured so owners don't lose all of their possessions, but corporations approached that theory from the wrong angle.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Okay good to see we have agreement here, though what type a Insurance business will exceed in a market, one that is small and has to charge larger insurance fees or one that gets continually bigger and can charge less and les because of the capital it controls.
Similarily, if you think the patent system should be kept just the way it is, what size of businesses can afford more reasearch into new products: one that is small or big?
Wouldnt reasearch take up a larger bite in the profit margin of a smaller company while larger ones would still be able to give out a nice dividend while expending the same amount of money?
Similarily, it seems the extended age rules for patents helps a large corporation keep control of the price for such a new product, guaranteeing that it will deliver to the investors.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (freedom1st)
You're ignoring that growth, in a free market, becomes exponentially tougher as companies get larger.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
And you ignoring the economic incentives for corporate assimilation.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (freedom1st)
Thats ironic, considering that America has never been a free market- we've had 6 Marxist tenets in place for nearly a hundred years. Microsoft has been enabled by government-established restrictions/regulations/welfare to business that price out the little guy and enable the big guy<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I beleive that Miniphreek answered this assertion, that the NEP style economic system is an inherently marxist system is false.
So in other words, the U.S has had 6 NEP tenets for a hundred years, with the latter 2 being pro-corporate.
Again, what was forcing those computer manufacturers to have windows pre installed?
What goverment restrictions helped do this, the which welfare checks were threatened to be removed- plus what regulations demanded that MSWindows be installed in all of these computers?
Seems to me that MS only had to say the words "you know we are the only operating system on the market, why not package it directly with you comp?".
And they had a valid point, other then Apple which is looked down by PC users in general had no option for operating systems, other then sticking with the archaic DOS or going with windows.
It was a market neccessity.
In fact the only regulation that I think would be relevant here would be the patent system, the one you have no vocal opinion against, though linux doesnt like it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
What "ethical morality that says you can't steal money?" That kind of thing is a result of wishful thinking. Are you expecting a non-sentient economic system (capitalism) to enforce a "universal morality" pertaining to theft? Yeah, Bayou, in reality bad things happen sometimes. Do you have a hard time realizing that the state and corporations are different sides of the same coin? Here we have you whining about corporations (which are created by the state using "law" which are threats backed by force) stealing from people, and your solution is to institute an organization based on forceful exaction (extortion) of money and redistribution of wealth in order to prevent the original thieves?!?! AHAHAHA<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
No a communist system based on bartering would have no money to steal, it would be a system of equal distribution according to needs, with wealth expressed in ideas and goals in which to strive for in our work.
Yes indeed I realise the coin and the faces paradox, one of marx's key points is that business and government have been one and the same thing.
Capitalism is based on stealing, it's economic system revolves around the needs of man, taking from the environemnt without thought of the cause and effect of those actions.
I dont expect a system like that to survive along with the government that is the other side of the same coin.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
You act as if all businessmen are thieves, which is incorrect. I don't advocate the abolition of "government" because it doesn't exist. That's like asking an atheist if he wants to abolish "god." The only thing I'm interested in is abolishing state sponsored violence and institutionalized extortion.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Thats because capitalism is theivery, I am glad that we both want to abolish state sponsored violence and theivery to, though then how one would support capitalism in light of its theft and plunder of the natural environment without government regualtion(thievery) seems kinda hypocritical.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
If by "businesses" you mean "corporations," would you mind telling me how a state is going to create a corporation if the state doesn't exist?<hr size="1" /></blockquote> Nope I said and ment business, remember you havent explained how anarcho capitalism magically creates a better world while it shrugs of this armour of government, that historically has been so profiteable of a relationship.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
Heh, here we go again... On the contrary, if I was filthy rich, I'd give most of the money away(while still leaving myself enough to live comfortably). You've pigeonholed me into a "selfish, money grubbing capitalist asshole" stereotype because I think it's wrong to steal money from people and give it to drug addicts. That said, there's nothing stopping me from doing a bum a good turn now and then, and I've done it before.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Except by giving the bum money you havent done them a good turn, only enabled their ability to feed their addiction.
It is those thieves who take your money who think that they can do a better job then you, and I would have to agree- they are at least trying to help them, rather then buying off their guilty conscience.
Heh you have pigeohold youself with you superficial answers and assumptions.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
As for the "services," what the thief does with the money after he steals it is irrelevant<hr size="1" /></blockquote> unlike you who knows that money will magically make you sober.<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
Whether he pays for a road, retirement homes for aging test chimps, or votes to give himself a raise and lines his own pockets with it. It's still extortion (give me your money or I will do X), and it's wrong, regardless of where the money goes afterward<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Good I am glad we have reached the same conclusion about capitalism too then, so you are willing to give back the rescources you have taken and remake the environment you have destroyed in the proccess.<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
Also, you seem to think that benefiting from something, whether directly or indirectly, somehow results in an "obligation" to pay. You can't seem to figure out that if people want roads, security forces, water, et al, that someone will figure out a way to capitalize upon creating this things for them. "I just WIIIISH there was a road I could use to get to the supermarket, but since there isn't, I'll just sit here and starve." <---pffft.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Because they have found a way to profit from them, you see businesses dont have to pay the brunt cost of these services themselves because of the univeral theivery that they benefitt from, businesses small and large.
And people are not going to sit around being deprived of their services just to wait until some business has an apiphany about bulding something profiteably that was feesible with a little cooperation from everybody, not to mention more cost effective because they didnt have to pay of dividends to share holders.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
People aren't equal. No matter how much you steal from people and split it up, this won't change.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Hmmmm I see so, the capitalist systems base that "all peoples work value are equal" is in fact false and we should take and use that work time for our own advantage because they are not our "equal".
Again, the capitalist is now the rationale extortionist.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
So help them out and quit advocating extortion.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I try, but you do not listen to my plea against extortion and what am I but one man of lesser economic equality then you, I can only invest the time you do not want to spare.......
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
If people want to self-medicate, there's not much you're going to do about it. Throwing stolen money at the issue won't make it go away.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
No their is lots I am going to do about it, the economic system though limits the quality of my help. I never said anything about giving drug addicts money.
How simplistic you paint perspectives with, try colouring without cynicism and condescention.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
Because there isn't a solution. I'm glad you have found me cooperative in your critique of Anarcho-capitalism<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Try colouring without cynicism and condescention.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
Okay.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Okay, do I need to elaborate more?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
I never said anything about a "personal utopia." I merely said that it's wrong to steal from everyone to pay for other people's problems. You haven't proved that "government" even exists yet, so stop saying that it does all of these wonderful things. "methods change as we speak." Does that mean that the state finds bigger and better ways to flush stolen money down the toilet in a desparate attempt to control something which can't be controlled?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Isnt that the irony, I dont need to prove that government exists- your bithcing about the government proves that it affects you, so unless your mentally unstable I can assume this is a real entity for someone to want to dismantle it.
Oh and I can prove that corporations exist too, guess what operating system I am using and who made it..........
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
I don't distinguish any difference between someone who advocates institutionalised extortion and/or believes in a ficticious entity called "government." That's what authoritarians are, otherwise known as statists. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "education." You're not telling me anything I haven't heard before from any other communist. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Well I geuss I will say it again, I dont beleive in stealing by any means, whether it be the rape of nature or the rationalisation of extortion of people because an Apetberge thinks their inferior to them.
I see that you are still unclear about the capitalist system then and what it would be like without government, back to the article in question:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bayou)
The fallacy comes from the word: "free market". Nature in general is a highly integrated whole that is not a free system, it is a complex collection of regulating systems that create stability. A market on a small scale might seem free but as capitalism expands it will run into environmental barriers that cannot be exceeded: regulation is inneviteable in one form or another. Whether it is nature liquidating humanity or humanity regulating itself is what is the final question we must answer.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
What does that have to do with the fact that extortion is wrong?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>because capitalism sets up a system in which the people are dependent on that system for survival, it is not truely a free market in any sense of the word, capitalist petbeerge dictatorship.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Apetberg)
Would you mind breaking that paragraph down and translating<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bayou)
The fallacy comes from the word: "free market".<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Free market, an oxymoron; implying something that doesnt or cannot exist in nature. Why?, next paragraph.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bayou)
Nature in general is a highly integrated whole that is not a free system, it is a complex collection of regulating systems that create stability.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> everything in nature is connected as a whole- their are built in feedback structures to regulate the system, anything that destabilises the system will cause feedback loops of more extreme measure until that instability is under control. <blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bayou)
A market on a small scale might seem free but as capitalism expands it will run into environmental barriers that cannot be exceeded: regulation is inneviteable in one form or another.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
A capitalist economy on a small scale with small innefective chains will not destabilise nature so much at first, but as it grows and remains free of natural regualting systems of the world, then nature will destabilise and the environment we thrived in will decay and eventually <blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bayou)
Whether it is nature liquidating humanity or humanity regulating itself is what is the final question we must answer.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> nature will liquidate us, unless humanity voluntarily regulates itself in its present economic system or a new economic system entirely.
Capitalism has been condemmed to be hobbled by the governmental regulation it so despises or to be superceeded by a economic system that can integrate itself into nature far more effectively.....or sentence humanity to death at the hands of our nihilistic selfishness by the jurry of nature.

**castille** · 19th February 2004, 08:37 AM

No matter what happens, no matter how much brainwashing and death camps, we cannot restrain the nature of man.

Tyger Tyger burning bright,
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye,
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

User Tag List

Thread: Communism Can Work

Thread Tools

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions