The Thread Formerly Known As Communism Will Save The World

[Kubra]

On a side note, the Western civilizations were the first to abolish slavery.

Sure, great, bully, to the rest.
So Locke, dude with heavy investment in the slave trade, penned a constitution for the Carolinas that involved absolute power of the master over slaves, wrote in his famous two treatise that it's mostly the slaves fault for being a slave and the master may therefore go about his usual business, what are we to make of this?

[The Batorys]

On a side note, the Western civilizations were the first to abolish slavery.

Sure, great, bully, to the rest.
So Locke, dude with heavy investment in the slave trade, penned a constitution for the Carolinas that involved absolute power of the master over slaves, wrote in his famous two treatise that it's mostly the slaves fault for being a slave and the master may therefore go about his usual business, what are we to make of this?

That Locke wasn't be the be all and end all of political thought?

[Kubra]

Sure, great, bully, to the rest.
So Locke, dude with heavy investment in the slave trade, penned a constitution for the Carolinas that involved absolute power of the master over slaves, wrote in his famous two treatise that it's mostly the slaves fault for being a slave and the master may therefore go about his usual business, what are we to make of this?

That Locke wasn't be the be all and end all of political thought?

Well I mean sure I agree but I ain't the one treating him as such

[The Batorys]

That Locke wasn't be the be all and end all of political thought?

Well I mean sure I agree but I ain't the one treating him as such

True.

I mean, far be it from me to presume to be any sort of philosopher or even close, but I have some fundamental disagreements with Locke.

[Kubra]

Well I mean sure I agree but I ain't the one treating him as such

True.

I mean, far be it from me to presume to be any sort of philosopher or even close, but I have some fundamental disagreements with Locke.

Yeah I'm merely pointing out the absurdity that rejecting Locke means embracing slavery

[Cyrothica]

I've come across several threads which are at the peak of misanthropy. Instead, I posit a solution: communism.

Think about it. What is the #1 cause of all the world's current problems? Inequality. What is another? Lack of resources, or rather lack of equal access to those resources. Under a potentially communist direction, we can not only own the means of production but also own the finished product equally.

By ensuring future generations have something to live for, we can no longer pretend that the current system works, or at least just tolerate the current system. We have to act. We have to do something else. And that is why communism will do this exact thing.

Yeah thats all good and well, but since when has any form of government preformed TRUE equality and ect? I genuinely can't think of any except for maybe Ghaddafi, but he was a socialist at best.

[Grand Proudhonia]

I've come across several threads which are at the peak of misanthropy. Instead, I posit a solution: communism.

Think about it. What is the #1 cause of all the world's current problems? Inequality. What is another? Lack of resources, or rather lack of equal access to those resources. Under a potentially communist direction, we can not only own the means of production but also own the finished product equally.

By ensuring future generations have something to live for, we can no longer pretend that the current system works, or at least just tolerate the current system. We have to act. We have to do something else. And that is why communism will do this exact thing.

Yeah thats all good and well, but since when has any form of government preformed TRUE equality and ect? I genuinely can't think of any except for maybe Ghaddafi, but he was a socialist at best.

Thats because the state is not capable of equality, only political anarchy is

[The Batorys]

True.

I mean, far be it from me to presume to be any sort of philosopher or even close, but I have some fundamental disagreements with Locke.

Yeah I'm merely pointing out the absurdity that rejecting Locke means embracing slavery

Totally agree with you.

I can acknowledge the enormous influence Locke had while also thinking he was often incorrect. Much like Aristotle.

[Takso]

Yeah thats all good and well, but since when has any form of government preformed TRUE equality and ect? I genuinely can't think of any except for maybe Ghaddafi, but he was a socialist at best.

Thats because the state is not capable of equality, only political anarchy is

Political anarchy is not sustainable. Eventually a socioeconomic structure fills the vacuum. Norway has the lowest Gini index of any country in the world, it is far from an anarchy, but rather is a capitalist welfare state. Note the keyword here is capitalism. You can't spread the wealth if you don't have any to begin with.

You know, wealth is a very dynamic thing... You take a mountain for example... Alone it does nothing... But mined and exploited for its minerals and you can get all kinds of resources, which you can then manufacture into tools, which can then produce more tools and more tools and more tools. The point being, why capitalism is successful is because it rewards people for being innovative (competitive). Under Communism, you are rewarded far less, or anything at all really because the fruits of your labour are controlled and rationed by an authoritarian (it is always authoritarian) power. The best you could hope for is a lower-middle class standard of living.

Under capitalism, yes you have big corporations and if you work for these corporations, they will pay you for your market worth. But you can start your own small business and if you're lucky, you may one day be the leader of a big corporation yourself. That's why it is so successful. It provides the opportunity or chance to succeed. Under Communism you have no chance to succeed except by risking your life to flee.

[Kubra]

Yeah I'm merely pointing out the absurdity that rejecting Locke means embracing slavery

Totally agree with you.

I can acknowledge the enormous influence Locke had while also thinking he was often incorrect. Much like Aristotle.

Yeah, exactly. I honestly don't hold it against Locke, his views were quite progressive compared to the rest of the upstanding englishmen of the time.
And poor Aristotle, his teachings held back learning for quite some time but none of it was his fault at all. We later readers were his abusers.

[Grand Proudhonia]

Thats because the state is not capable of equality, only political anarchy is

Political anarchy is not sustainable. Eventually a socioeconomic structure fills the vacuum. Norway has the lowest Gini index of any country in the world, it is far from an anarchy, but rather is a capitalist welfare state. Note the keyword here is capitalism. You can't spread the wealth if you don't have any to begin with.

You know, wealth is a very dynamic thing... You take a mountain for example... Alone it does nothing... But mined and exploited for its minerals and you can get all kinds of resources, which you can then manufacture into tools, which can then produce more tools and more tools and more tools. The point being, why capitalism is successful is because it rewards people for being innovative (competitive). Under Communism, you are rewarded far less, or anything at all really because the fruits of your labour are controlled and rationed by an authoritarian (it is always authoritarian) power. The best you could hope for is a lower-middle class standard of living.

Under capitalism, yes you have big corporations and if you work for these corporations, they will pay you for your market worth. But you can start your own small business and if you're lucky, you may one day be the leader of a big corporation yourself. That's why it is so successful. It provides the opportunity or chance to succeed. Under Communism you have no chance to succeed except by risking your life to flee.

I am not arguing for Communism, I am arguing for Mutualist Political Anarchy.... a society in which the market structure still remains intact however the ownership of production belongs to the workers through the use of worker cooperatives and unions that compete on a free and open market... and yes, political anarchy is sustainable... its important to acknowledge the fact that political anarchy is not against governance but rather hierarchical governance is what we seek to destroy... This is to be further replaced by horizontal governance which involves local communities running themselves under a system of direct democracy, similar to what will be deployed in the worker cooperatives... There will be no elected leaders or power structure, all citizens of the anarchist society will vote on decisions such as production and management of local communities directly... furthermore these individual communities will be connected together by a loose anarchist federation that encourages trade... This federation will furthermore be defended by a completely volunteer military built on revolutionary self discipline... This is how Nestor Makhno organized The Free Territory of Ukraine before he was betrayed by the soviet totalitarians.... Today, Rojava has employed a similar form of political anarchy which has been sustained...

Mutualism seeks to retain the market structures that promote innovation and competition whilst eliminate inequality and the oppression of the working peoples, you do not need Capitalism and its oppression to reap the supposed benefits of it

[Grand Proudhonia]

One day, people will understand that political anarchy is not some pipe dream

[Kubra]

One day, people will understand that political anarchy is not some pipe dream

I mean to be fair Proudhon's anarchism wasn't nearly as anarchistic as us latter-day saints prefer it

[Grand Proudhonia]

One day, people will understand that political anarchy is not some pipe dream

I mean to be fair Proudhon's anarchism wasn't nearly as anarchistic as us latter-day saints prefer it

Yeah no, religion is inherently an ally of the state

[Takso]

Political anarchy is not sustainable. Eventually a socioeconomic structure fills the vacuum. Norway has the lowest Gini index of any country in the world, it is far from an anarchy, but rather is a capitalist welfare state. Note the keyword here is capitalism. You can't spread the wealth if you don't have any to begin with.

You know, wealth is a very dynamic thing... You take a mountain for example... Alone it does nothing... But mined and exploited for its minerals and you can get all kinds of resources, which you can then manufacture into tools, which can then produce more tools and more tools and more tools. The point being, why capitalism is successful is because it rewards people for being innovative (competitive). Under Communism, you are rewarded far less, or anything at all really because the fruits of your labour are controlled and rationed by an authoritarian (it is always authoritarian) power. The best you could hope for is a lower-middle class standard of living.

Under capitalism, yes you have big corporations and if you work for these corporations, they will pay you for your market worth. But you can start your own small business and if you're lucky, you may one day be the leader of a big corporation yourself. That's why it is so successful. It provides the opportunity or chance to succeed. Under Communism you have no chance to succeed except by risking your life to flee.

I am not arguing for Communism, I am arguing for Mutualist Political Anarchy.... a society in which the market structure still remains intact however the ownership of production belongs to the workers through the use of worker cooperatives and unions that compete on a free and open market... and yes, political anarchy is sustainable... its important to acknowledge the fact that political anarchy is not against governance but rather hierarchical governance is what we seek to destroy... This is to be further replaced by horizontal governance which involves local communities running themselves under a system of direct democracy, similar to what will be deployed in the worker cooperatives... There will be no elected leaders or power structure, all citizens of the anarchist society will vote on decisions such as production and management of local communities directly... furthermore these individual communities will be connected together by a loose anarchist federation that encourages trade... This federation will furthermore be defended by a completely volunteer military built on revolutionary self discipline... This is how Nestor Makhno organized The Free Territory of Ukraine before he was betrayed by the soviet totalitarians.... Today, Rojava has employed a similar form of political anarchy which has been sustained...

Mutualism seeks to retain the market structures that promote innovation and competition whilst eliminate inequality and the oppression of the working peoples, you do not need Capitalism and its oppression to reap the supposed benefits of it

Hmm... I'll pass on Syria. Norway's model seems a lot more successful.

[Grand Proudhonia]

I am not arguing for Communism, I am arguing for Mutualist Political Anarchy.... a society in which the market structure still remains intact however the ownership of production belongs to the workers through the use of worker cooperatives and unions that compete on a free and open market... and yes, political anarchy is sustainable... its important to acknowledge the fact that political anarchy is not against governance but rather hierarchical governance is what we seek to destroy... This is to be further replaced by horizontal governance which involves local communities running themselves under a system of direct democracy, similar to what will be deployed in the worker cooperatives... There will be no elected leaders or power structure, all citizens of the anarchist society will vote on decisions such as production and management of local communities directly... furthermore these individual communities will be connected together by a loose anarchist federation that encourages trade... This federation will furthermore be defended by a completely volunteer military built on revolutionary self discipline... This is how Nestor Makhno organized The Free Territory of Ukraine before he was betrayed by the soviet totalitarians.... Today, Rojava has employed a similar form of political anarchy which has been sustained...

Mutualism seeks to retain the market structures that promote innovation and competition whilst eliminate inequality and the oppression of the working peoples, you do not need Capitalism and its oppression to reap the supposed benefits of it

Hmm... I'll pass on Syria. Norway's model seems a lot more successful.

A lot more successful at creating wage slaves and subordinates of the state? Yeah, I guess so

[Grand Proudhonia]

I've come across several threads which are at the peak of misanthropy. Instead, I posit a solution: communism.

Think about it. What is the #1 cause of all the world's current problems? Inequality. What is another? Lack of resources, or rather lack of equal access to those resources. Under a potentially communist direction, we can not only own the means of production but also own the finished product equally.

By ensuring future generations have something to live for, we can no longer pretend that the current system works, or at least just tolerate the current system. We have to act. We have to do something else. And that is why communism will do this exact thing.

Sounds good. I know some poor people. If we embrace communism, can you give each of us $ 500 ? Thanx.

Thats not what marxism is at all but ok

[Kubra]

I mean to be fair Proudhon's anarchism wasn't nearly as anarchistic as us latter-day saints prefer it

Yeah no, religion is inherently an ally of the state

latter-day saints of anarchism, I mean. It's metaphorical.

[Grand Proudhonia]

Yeah no, religion is inherently an ally of the state

latter-day saints of anarchism, I mean. It's metaphorical.

Oh lol, I dont really get what your trying to say... please do explain

[Takso]

Hmm... I'll pass on Syria. Norway's model seems a lot more successful.

A lot more successful at creating wage slaves and subordinates of the state? Yeah, I guess so

I would wager that Norway has considerable more respect for human rights than any place in Syria, but to each their own.

[Kubra]

latter-day saints of anarchism, I mean. It's metaphorical.

Oh lol, I dont really get what your trying to say... please do explain

Well I mean anarchism after proudhon got a little more, y'know, anarchistic. Proudhon's anarchism was more a label for what was quite radical during his stint as a parliamentarian, which was devolving the powers of the central government to much smaller local units. For him, the term anarchism was fuck-you to the rest of the french political classes. It's why he called himself a federalist later in life.
And none of this would disagree with the bloke, mind you. In his own words, he wanted a future where he would be ridiculed as a conservative, because even if he stayed the same the world would have moved in that direction.

[Grand Proudhonia]

Oh lol, I dont really get what your trying to say... please do explain

Well I mean anarchism after proudhon got a little more, y'know, anarchistic. Proudhon's anarchism was more a label for what was quite radical during his stint as a parliamentarian, which was devolving the powers of the central government to much smaller local units. For him, the term anarchism was fuck-you to the rest of the french political classes. It's why he called himself a federalist later in life.
And none of this would disagree with the bloke, mind you. In his own words, he wanted a future where he would be ridiculed as a conservative, because even if he stayed the same the world would have moved in that direction.

I mean you have to realize that even Makhno, the individual that put the ideas of later anarchist thinkers into action during the 1910s and 20s, considered himself a Federalist and called Federalism the means of Anarchism in some of his eassys ala

"Anarchism has always rejected centralist organization both where the social life of the masses is concerned as well as in the area of its political activity. The system of centralization relies upon the stifling of the spirit of criticism, initiative and independence of every individual and upon the masses' blind obedience to the "centre". The natural and inevitable upshot of this system is slavishness and mechanization, both in public life and in the life of parties.

Contrary to centralism, anarchism has always advocated and defended the principle of federalism, which combines the independence of the individual or organization with their initiative and service to the common cause.

By combining the idea of the independence and fullness of each individual's rights with service of social requirements and instincts, federalism paves the way to every wholesome manifestation of the faculties of each individual."

Really, Proudhons anarchism isnt all that different from the Anarchism of Makhno and Kropotkin... Proudhon planted the seed and the later thinkers expanded it and put it into action... my proposal for the implementation of a political anarchist state, which I am sure you have seen repeated multiple times in this thread, is ripped straight from Mahknos application of these thinkers thoughts

[Grand Proudhonia]

Fuck, we really need a general anarchism thread lol

[Kowani]

Fuck, we really need a general anarchism thread lol

Well, we have the LWDT…

[Grand Proudhonia]

Fuck, we really need a general anarchism thread lol

Well, we have the LWDT…

Yeah but its a much more diverse thread... a thread dedicated to the debate of political anarchism, even including the anarcho capitalists (as much as I disagree with them for the fact that hierarchies are necessary in capitalist societies), could be fairly interesting but maybe your right