Is workable Communism really impossible?
04 Aug 2012, 3:20 pm
AspieRogue wrote:
Perhaps a better example was the Occupy movement, which was based on the principles of leaderless resistance and communal living. It was unable to achieve its goals due to being disorganized and chaotic.
I have an inside track that occupy was completely successful as a provo to show
the truth about the propose of police.
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
04 Aug 2012, 3:25 pm
AspieRogue wrote:
Who is going to protect the rights of an individual who is despised by the community for being different despite having done no wrong? Who will protect someone falsely accused by another member of the community who is better liked and respected than the accused? With no central authority, there is nothing to stop people from ganging up on somebody they dislike and harming that person. Anarchy soon leads to chaos. If don't believe me, just look at what happened in Somalia following the collapse of the government.
Communalism might or might not feature authority ... it's a separate issue altogether. The military, for instance, is communal to a extreme degree but there is definately no lack of order and authority. This is a good argument against anarchy (which, theoretically, is the end goal of communism) but not communal organization.
04 Aug 2012, 3:56 pm
edgewaters wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Who is going to protect the rights of an individual who is despised by the community for being different despite having done no wrong? Who will protect someone falsely accused by another member of the community who is better liked and respected than the accused? With no central authority, there is nothing to stop people from ganging up on somebody they dislike and harming that person. Anarchy soon leads to chaos. If don't believe me, just look at what happened in Somalia following the collapse of the government.
Communalism might or might not feature authority ... it's a separate issue altogether. The military, for instance, is communal to a extreme degree but there is definately no lack of order and authority. This is a good argument against anarchy (which, theoretically, is the end goal of communism) but not communal organization.
I'm not entirely against socialism, but I do believe in private property. My idea is that everyone be equal in terms of what they have as their own; rather than communal ownership. The means of production should owned and controlled by the state. And of course, there needs to be a central authority and a chain of command.
thomas81
Veteran
Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland
04 Aug 2012, 4:02 pm
AspieRogue wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Who is going to protect the rights of an individual who is despised by the community for being different despite having done no wrong? Who will protect someone falsely accused by another member of the community who is better liked and respected than the accused? With no central authority, there is nothing to stop people from ganging up on somebody they dislike and harming that person. Anarchy soon leads to chaos. If don't believe me, just look at what happened in Somalia following the collapse of the government.
Communalism might or might not feature authority ... it's a separate issue altogether. The military, for instance, is communal to a extreme degree but there is definately no lack of order and authority. This is a good argument against anarchy (which, theoretically, is the end goal of communism) but not communal organization.
I'm not entirely against socialism, but I do believe in private property. My idea is that everyone be equal in terms of what they have as their own; rather than communal ownership. The means of production should owned and controlled by the state. And of course, there needs to be a central authority and a chain of command.
Theres different types of property. You have personal property such as your house, your car or your TV. Then theres the other sort of property such known as 'private property' such as a factory, office or hospital. Anything which is owned specifically to exappropriate the labour power of workers. Anti communists deliberately obfusticate the two so that people will falsely think communism means having to give up your posessions.
04 Aug 2012, 5:05 pm
AspieRogue wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Who is going to protect the rights of an individual who is despised by the community for being different despite having done no wrong? Who will protect someone falsely accused by another member of the community who is better liked and respected than the accused? With no central authority, there is nothing to stop people from ganging up on somebody they dislike and harming that person. Anarchy soon leads to chaos. If don't believe me, just look at what happened in Somalia following the collapse of the government.
Communalism might or might not feature authority ... it's a separate issue altogether. The military, for instance, is communal to a extreme degree but there is definately no lack of order and authority. This is a good argument against anarchy (which, theoretically, is the end goal of communism) but not communal organization.
I'm not entirely against socialism, but I do believe in private property. My idea is that everyone be equal in terms of what they have as their own; rather than communal ownership. The means of production should owned and controlled by the state. And of course, there needs to be a central authority and a chain of command.
So would I be going out on a limb calling you a authoritarian communist?
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
RushKing
Veteran
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States
04 Aug 2012, 7:28 pm
AspieRogue wrote:
Perhaps a better example was the Occupy movement, which was based on the principles of leaderless resistance and communal living. It was unable to achieve its goals due to being disorganized and chaotic.
No
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GazhaLD_Daw[/youtube]
04 Aug 2012, 8:00 pm
edgewaters wrote:
Aspie_Chav wrote:
So parasites can only come about on the back of its host. When the host dies, so will the parasite. Mmm.. I guess if parasites can thrive in nature, then it can also thrive as a philosophy too.
No, its (supposedly, theoretically) an evolution not a "parasite" that is "hosted" by capitalism but the stage of history following it, same as capitalism is not "parasite" that feudalism "hosts", but a stage that follows feudalism.
Marx was right about some things. He was right in predicting that capitalism would destroy national industries and subordinate them to a global economy, complete with its own culture, and this would be the harbinger of a new class coming to dominance after pushing the merchant-industrialists of the 19th and 20th centuries out of the way. But he was wrong about which class, it wasn't the factory worker, it was the managerial/executive class (who, in his time, were little more than supervisors/accountants and were essentially trusted servants, classified by him as members of the "petty bourgeouis" rather than true bourgeouis).
I meant communism is a parasite on capitalism. Capitalism creates the wealth, then communism feeds of i until there is nothing.
04 Aug 2012, 8:00 pm
thomas81 wrote:
Anything which is owned specifically to exappropriate the labour power of workers. Anti communists deliberately obfusticate the two so that people will falsely think communism means having to give up your posessions.
Workers are paid for their labor. Nothing is expropriated. It is a simple trade: so many hours at performing a task in exchange for so many monetary units.
ruveyn
04 Aug 2012, 8:13 pm
Aspie_Chav wrote:
One of the issues with communism is collective ownership is a poor substitute for private ownership.
In the Croydon riots people would run home to protect their property rather then riot on the street.
In the Croydon riots people would run home to protect their property rather then riot on the street.
Collective ownership is doomed to fail. People will always favor their particular personal interests.
Read -The Tragedy of the Commons- by Garret Hardin sometime.
Common resources are never managed well. They are eroded and abused.
ruveyn
RushKing
Veteran
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States
04 Aug 2012, 8:34 pm
Aspie_Chav wrote:
One of the issues with communism is collective ownership is a poor substitute for private ownership.
In the Croydon riots people would run home to protect their property rather then riot on the street.
In the Croydon riots people would run home to protect their property rather then riot on the street.
Anarcho communists believe in collective ownership of the means of production, not personal property.
04 Aug 2012, 11:13 pm
AspieRogue wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Who is going to protect the rights of an individual who is despised by the community for being different despite having done no wrong? Who will protect someone falsely accused by another member of the community who is better liked and respected than the accused? With no central authority, there is nothing to stop people from ganging up on somebody they dislike and harming that person. Anarchy soon leads to chaos. If don't believe me, just look at what happened in Somalia following the collapse of the government.
Communalism might or might not feature authority ... it's a separate issue altogether. The military, for instance, is communal to a extreme degree but there is definately no lack of order and authority. This is a good argument against anarchy (which, theoretically, is the end goal of communism) but not communal organization.
I'm not entirely against socialism, but I do believe in private property. My idea is that everyone be equal in terms of what they have as their own; rather than communal ownership. The means of production should owned and controlled by the state. And of course, there needs to be a central authority and a chain of command.
I just like the idea of enlightened self-interest and a regulated capitalism, whose excesses are controlled and managed so as to achieve a balance and have the economy function well for everyone. Private ownership of the means of production but strong regulation to curb dangerous predators in the market and to mitigate the effects of structural unemployment (which is something I accept as inescapable, in any system driven by productivity and efficiency). A good mix of freedom and responsibility, for every part of society, top to bottom.
05 Aug 2012, 12:16 am
JakobVirgil wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
No, lynching is what happens when a central authority is not listened to and is totally inadequate. In this case, the central authority is just strong enough to prevent the creation of smaller, autonomous communities, but not strong enough to truly enforce anything. The individuals have no legal means of enforcing justice, so they have to use extralegal means. This is chaos, not anarchy.
I don't know specifically how it would be handle under a communal system, because each community would create its own rules and its own system. However, I can assure you that it would not involve random violence, nor wanton revenge. Rather, the group would decide what is best, either by creating its own rules and procedures, by judging individual cases collectively or any other way.
I don't know specifically how it would be handle under a communal system, because each community would create its own rules and its own system. However, I can assure you that it would not involve random violence, nor wanton revenge. Rather, the group would decide what is best, either by creating its own rules and procedures, by judging individual cases collectively or any other way.
Is this Marcos's "world that contains all worlds"?
I have no idea what that is, so probably not.
AspieRogue wrote:
Who is going to protect the rights of an individual who is despised by the community for being different despite having done no wrong? Who will protect someone falsely accused by another member of the community who is better liked and respected than the accused?
You are right, that is not at all a problem under our system. (Sarcasm)
AspieRogue wrote:
With no central authority, there is nothing to stop people from ganging up on somebody they dislike and harming that person. Anarchy soon leads to chaos.
What? Is that a quote from Yoda? "Communal government leads to anarchy, anarchy leads to chaos, chaos leads... to suffering."
AspieRogue wrote:
If don't believe me, just look at what happened in Somalia following the collapse of the government.
You are right, it is chaos, but it never was anarchy.
AspieRogue wrote:
Perhaps a better example was the Occupy movement, which was based on the principles of leaderless resistance and communal living. It was unable to achieve its goals due to being disorganized and chaotic.
No, it didn't achieve its goal because it wasn't a menace to anything. Occupy was at most an annoyance. I found them silly from the start.
AspieRogue wrote:
I'm not entirely against socialism, but I do believe in private property. My idea is that everyone be equal in terms of what they have as their own; rather than communal ownership. The means of production should owned and controlled by the state. And of course, there needs to be a central authority and a chain of command.
Oh, so you are in favour of repeating the failure of the Soviet Union, then?
That's right. That is exactly what you are offering. The USSR was state ownership of the means of production. I wouldn't say it failed utterly, but it performed little better than capitalism, which is not the point.
For the record, I am certain that this or any other theoretical system is not worth the effort to implement it, and believe that the best form government is reaching progressively and empirically -- first because revolutions are bloody and wasteful, and second because they are too rapid for mentalities to adjust, and so fail. However, the core principles of communism are workable as a system, and saying that they aren't is strictly ideological.
05 Aug 2012, 7:45 am
enrico_dandolo wrote:
That's right. That is exactly what you are offering. The USSR was state ownership of the means of production. I wouldn't say it failed utterly, but it performed little better than capitalism, which is not the point.
.
It never performed anywhere near as well as a market based economy and that is the point. The people of Russia suffered misery, pain and death all because of a Theory. And the neighbors of Russia suffered as well.
ruveyn
05 Aug 2012, 10:03 am
ruveyn wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
That's right. That is exactly what you are offering. The USSR was state ownership of the means of production. I wouldn't say it failed utterly, but it performed little better than capitalism, which is not the point.
.
It never performed anywhere near as well as a market based economy and that is the point. The people of Russia suffered misery, pain and death all because of a Theory. And the neighbors of Russia suffered as well.
ruveyn
Their suffering was at least 1000 times as worst under the Tsarist regime which lasted centuries. Funny how now that communism is gone, at least 50% of Russians want it back. The free market economy introduced by Yeltsin sure worked out well there now, didn't it?
