Capitalism vs. Communism

[Grachmen]

The Paris commune of 1871, not the Paris commune of the French revolution. The Paris commune of 1871 was ended when the french regular army marched on the city of Paris, and broke out in several battles and skirmishes, eventually being taken out by military strength. Catalonia, is a subject I studied extensively. the Socialist revolution built in Catalonia was undermined by Stalin who didn't want to alienate his ally of France by allowing a socialist society to develop. It ended with the anarchists and Marxists skirmishing with Stalinist forces in the Streets of Barcelona. The fight was started when the Anarchists and Marxists refused to give up the telephone exchange, and decollectivize. Then Franco eventually took over all of Spain.

I know of both of these, I'm a European history major/grad student myself. The point I'm trying to make is that regardless of how they ended, I'm referring to what occurred DURING their existance.

The Paris commune's starvation might have something to do with loosing a war with Prussia. Catalonia had almost no unemployment, and most people got fed (aside from gypsies and nomads), that's more than I can say for pretty much every capitalist country right now.

Edit: I didn't want to engage in the irrelevant point earlier, but I feel like it now. The "cronyism, mafia-esque practices" involved the Spanish Republic, not the collectivized enterprises.

[Mavorpen]

Dear gods, there are people that believe the USSR was Socialist or Communist? I thought people were past that nonsense.

*Fixed. Sorry, I have no clue what was going through my mind when I typed that...

[LiangLai]

(Image)

This is the theory of a renowned psychologist Abraham Maslow, who based this theory of human motivation by studying healthy individuals in society. It appears if you want to maximize the productivity of society, you should attempt to meet everyone's basic needs rather than just a few lucky individuals. so under this assessment of human motivation, it's actually capitalism that restricts advancement.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs applied to an individual's needs, not a group of people's, or the needs of others.

[The Aryan Nations]

I mentioned the Paris commune and Anarchist Catalonia. Also, Maslow's hierarchy of needs was based off of studying healthy individuals, I simply applied it to a much larger scale.

Okay, but the Paris Commune ended with the starving deaths of hundreds of people and was a disaster, and Anarchist Catalonia has been demonstrated to have been hell on earth with cronyism, mafia-esque practices and simply wasn't particularly stable in any way or form. Frankly, the industrial production of its population wasn't great either.

So, the paris commune (lasting a few weeks) resulted in the starving deaths of hundreds, ignoring that on average it takes a month or so to starve to death assuming you were a reasonably healthy individual to start with?

perhaps you meant to say that it ended when it was INVADED

free territory is a much better example than Catalonia anyway, considering Catalonia was not socialist/communist, it was anarchist; the split had happened many, many years before. they even had battles with the Spanish Communist Party for Heimdalls sake...

[Norstal]

But then that requires a state. Something to protect the central planners. It wouldn't be (his version of) communism anymore.

in the actual marxist form of communism (including marxist-leninism) the staeless, classless society votes on everything. there is no central authority, and it is pretty much run on a county-by-county basis (as a frame of reference). the government is limited to counting votes (if that even counts- pardon the pun).

And yet again, you need someone to protect the voters and the bean-counters. Someone to ensure voting fraud doesn't happen. Someone to ensure universal suffrage is in place. Someone to ensure everyone votes. Etc.

[Odins Scandinavia]

in the actual marxist form of communism (including marxist-leninism) the staeless, classless society votes on everything. there is no central authority, and it is pretty much run on a county-by-county basis (as a frame of reference). the government is limited to counting votes (if that even counts- pardon the pun).

And yet again, you need someone to protect the voters and the bean-counters. Someone to ensure voting fraud doesn't happen. Someone to ensure universal suffrage is in place. Someone to ensure everyone votes. Etc.

again, you ignore the process of socialism. after generations of the message being ingrained into the human psyche, none of those issues would exist, particularly since the entire point of socialism ending and communism beginning is that the government becomes arbitrary after everyone does its job for it.

and also, as has been stated at least 9 times prior to this;

the government will exist only in the sense of counting votes (assuming this counts; pardon the pun)

[Norstal]

And yet again, you need someone to protect the voters and the bean-counters. Someone to ensure voting fraud doesn't happen. Someone to ensure universal suffrage is in place. Someone to ensure everyone votes. Etc.

again, you ignore the process of socialism. after generations of the message being ingrained into the human psyche, none of those issues would exist, particularly since the entire point of socialism ending and communism beginning is that the government becomes arbitrary after everyone does its job for it.

But that's a monopoly of coercion. That's hardly stateless.

[Grachmen]

(Image)

This is the theory of a renowned psychologist Abraham Maslow, who based this theory of human motivation by studying healthy individuals in society. It appears if you want to maximize the productivity of society, you should attempt to meet everyone's basic needs rather than just a few lucky individuals. so under this assessment of human motivation, it's actually capitalism that restricts advancement.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs applied to an individual's needs, not a group of people's, or the needs of others.

You do realize that I'm talking about meeting the needs of the individuals in the group, to increase the productivity of the individuals in the group right?

[LiangLai]

Maslow's hierarchy of needs applied to an individual's needs, not a group of people's, or the needs of others.

You do realize that I'm talking about meeting the needs of the individuals in the group, to increase the productivity of the individuals in the group right?

I'm not sure if it was you, but I recall someone on this thread a page or two ago stating that the individual's needs are secondary to those of the entire group?

[Mavorpen]

in the actual marxist form of communism (including marxist-leninism) the staeless, classless society votes on everything. there is no central authority, and it is pretty much run on a county-by-county basis (as a frame of reference). the government is limited to counting votes (if that even counts- pardon the pun).

And yet again, you need someone to protect the voters and the bean-counters. Someone to ensure voting fraud doesn't happen. Someone to ensure universal suffrage is in place. Someone to ensure everyone votes. Etc.

It doesn't seem like you're understanding the concept of Marxism. Karl Marx stated societies should go from Capitalism, to Socialism, to Communism. Going from Socialism to Communism only occurs AFTER the societies realize and agree that they need a stateless, classless society with no government (except to maybe do arbitrary things like diplomacy, counting votes, etc). The purpose of being Socialist first is to get used to the idea of equality, and to make the people realize that they need to be peaceful, that they need to be inherently good. Until the people are good and have no ill intentions, they should not and will not go to Communism.

[Odins Scandinavia]

again, you ignore the process of socialism. after generations of the message being ingrained into the human psyche, none of those issues would exist, particularly since the entire point of socialism ending and communism beginning is that the government becomes arbitrary after everyone does its job for it.

But that's a monopoly of coercion. That's hardly stateless.

missing maybe... 2/3 of my post?

the government only exists in the sense of people designated to count votes. that is the limit. there is no state.

[Grachmen]

There is a difference between government and state. The Government is just organizing people. The State is a monopoly of legal coercion. Government is like a general assembly, the state is like the police. Governments establish and uses the state, but they aren't the same thing. A stateless society means a lack of a coercive element, things like a police force become unnecessary.

[Grachmen]

You do realize that I'm talking about meeting the needs of the individuals in the group, to increase the productivity of the individuals in the group right?

I'm not sure if it was you, but I recall someone on this thread a page or two ago stating that the individual's needs are secondary to those of the entire group?

No that wasn't me, and basically what they where saying was something like the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

[Odins Scandinavia]

I'm not sure if it was you, but I recall someone on this thread a page or two ago stating that the individual's needs are secondary to those of the entire group?

No that wasn't me, and basically what they where saying was something like the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

actually, that would be yours truly.. me.

[LiangLai]

No that wasn't me, and basically what they where saying was something like the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

actually, that would be yours truly.. me.

My bad then. I've been kind of skimming the thread rather than reading it lately; sometimes I forget who posts what lol.

[Odins Scandinavia]

actually, that would be yours truly.. me.

My bad then. I've been kind of skimming the thread rather than reading it lately; sometimes I forget who posts what lol.

i was unaware that there was an alternative to doing that

[Demarlandia Nation]

If I joined an organization based on it's style i'd be an officer in the SS.

this is so, so fucking true

Fucking True.I Agree

[Norstal]

But that's a monopoly of coercion. That's hardly stateless.

missing maybe... 2/3 of my post?

the government only exists in the sense of people designated to count votes. that is the limit. there is no state.

You're assuming I said government, not state. State is the monopoly of force/coercion. It does not have to be conducted by the government. It can be conducted by an NGO, a corporation, a militia, what have you.

You see why "government" and "state" are different words? Think about it. it's not the same.

[Odins Scandinavia]

missing maybe... 2/3 of my post?

the government only exists in the sense of people designated to count votes. that is the limit. there is no state.

You're assuming I said government, not state. State is the monopoly of force/coercion. It does not have to be conducted by the government. It can be conducted by an NGO, a corporation, a militia, what have you.

You see why "government" and "state" are different words? Think about it. it's not the same.

goddamnit sib, now you have me doing it!

[Norstal]

You're assuming I said government, not state. State is the monopoly of force/coercion. It does not have to be conducted by the government. It can be conducted by an NGO, a corporation, a militia, what have you.

You see why "government" and "state" are different words? Think about it. it's not the same.

goddamnit sib, now you have me doing it!

They're different words. They're not the same. They're not even synonyms. Lrn2polticalscience.

[Odins Scandinavia]

goddamnit sib, now you have me doing it!

They're different words. They're not the same. They're not even synonyms. Lrn2polticalscience.

the stateless society is a society with no government; its a form of Anarchy. this.. is not a new idea.

[Norstal]

They're different words. They're not the same. They're not even synonyms. Lrn2polticalscience.

the stateless society is a society with no government; its a form of Anarchy. this.. is not a new idea.

Again, you're assuming that states are gone once you get rid of government. It doesn't work out that way. The definition of a state is the monopoly of force/coercion. I'm pointing out that your system is coercive. And I really don't see how it's not coercive.

Governments are the traditional leaders of a state, but, again, to put a greater emphasis on what a state is, a government is not required to form a state. A stateless society is a society free from coercion or force. It's the definition. There's nothing I can do about it. It's in numerous books. I don't understand why you get mad when the definition doesn't suit your needs.

[Grachmen]

That awkward moment when I agree with a capitalist. The State, and Government are in fact two different things. The government is something like a general assembly or council, the state is something like the Police force, or military. I'm not sure why you would need coercion in communism though.

[Odins Scandinavia]

That awkward moment when I agree with a capitalist. The State, and Government are in fact two different things. The government is something like a general assembly or council, the state is something like the Police force, or military. I'm not sure why you would need coercion in communism though.

this just suddenly made a whole lot more sense to me.

You can have the sate (say, Canada) without the government (montreal)

and vice-versa.

however, in a communist society, there is no government OR state, as they are means for the bourgeois to oppress the masses.

[Grachmen]

government is a means of organizing, the state is a means of oppression and coercion. I don't mean state as in territory, I mean state as in the police are a force of oppression. I mean government as some kind of committee, council or assembly.