The Thread Formerly Known As Communism Will Save The World

[Kubra]

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

well I msotly mean the present milieu, with its tiqqun and its crimethinc and its greeks making total destroy and all that jazz. You know, that shits the sort of thing that ridicules Proudhon as a conservative.

[Kowani]

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

I’m just thinking about sustainability…imagine if we had a megathread for every political branch.

[Grand Proudhonia]

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

well I msotly mean the present milieu, with its tiqqun and its crimethinc and its greeks making total destroy and all that jazz. You know, that shits the sort of thing that ridicules Proudhon as a conservative.

Ahh, so just a bunch of disenfranchised youth that wish to break stuff with no real end goal or society in mind? I cant stand them because they have no direction to put that anger towards but eh

[Grand Proudhonia]

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

I’m just thinking about sustainability…imagine if we had a megathread for every political branch.

Fair

[Kubra]

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

I’m just thinking about sustainability…imagine if we had a megathread for every political branch.

and in any case the lwdt for its regular posters tends towards non-tank stuff anyways
that said tho why is this a separate thread? A megathread is so stuff like this doesn't pop up.

[Grand Proudhonia]

I’m just thinking about sustainability…imagine if we had a megathread for every political branch.

and in any case the lwdt for its regular posters tends towards non-tank stuff anyways
that said tho why is this a separate thread? A megathread is so stuff like this doesn't pop up.

relatively young opening poster with short op, mind you I have been here nearly five years this is just a new nation, that somehow made it through the cracks but dont mind... spawned some good discussion

[Kubra]

and in any case the lwdt for its regular posters tends towards non-tank stuff anyways
that said tho why is this a separate thread? A megathread is so stuff like this doesn't pop up.

relatively young opening poster with short op, mind you I have been here nearly five years this is just a new nation, that somehow made it through the cracks but dont mind... spawned some good discussion

Well you're not the one who posted the thread
I mean I ain't gonna rag on anyone participating, lord knows I can't judge anyone there, but y'know.

[Grand Proudhonia]

relatively young opening poster with short op, mind you I have been here nearly five years this is just a new nation, that somehow made it through the cracks but dont mind... spawned some good discussion

Well you're not the one who posted the thread
I mean I ain't gonna rag on anyone participating, lord knows I can't judge anyone there, but y'know.

Not saying I did post the thread, just saying that for the inevitably "you called him a young op yet your nation is younger than his"

[Kubra]

Well you're not the one who posted the thread
I mean I ain't gonna rag on anyone participating, lord knows I can't judge anyone there, but y'know.

Not saying I did post the thread, just saying that for the inevitably "you called him a young op yet your nation is younger than his"

oh I guess I see
Again, ain't no judgement here, I'm just saying: this is kinda why the spectrums got their own threads, so we didn't have endless capitalism vs. communism threads. A lot of topics go through a trend where a chunk of threads are made for the same topics. There were some dark days regarding the northern ireland conflict, many years after most folks there stopped giving as many shits as everyone here did.

[Grand Proudhonia]

Thats not what marxism is at all but ok

Well, whu not. I m proletariat. However you make money so that makes you boises(?) . So as I understand it, people should less time contemplating a "God" and should focus on real things.

english?

[Kubra]

Thats not what marxism is at all but ok

Well, whu not. I m proletariat. However you make money so that makes you boises(?) . So as I understand it, people should less time contemplating a "God" and should focus on real things.

cuz no money
we abolish it

[Grand Proudhonia]

Well, whu not. I m proletariat. However you make money so that makes you boises(?) . So as I understand it, people should less time contemplating a "God" and should focus on real things.

cuz no money
we abolish it

Well put, comrade!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuFFYObr8ZU

[Kubra]

cuz no money
we abolish it

Well put, comrade!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuFFYObr8ZU

holy shit why am I here shitposting when I could be playing red orchestra 2

[Grand Proudhonia]

Well put, comrade!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuFFYObr8ZU

holy shit why am I here shitposting when I could be playing red orchestra 2

I could be playing STALKER for the 500th hour so I mean

[GlobalControl]

[Kubra]

I could be playing STALKER for the 500th hour so I mean

You have explained away Communism. Why ? Because you value things like money and food. Socialism can work then.

Oh, uh, glad you agree?

[Scomagia]

Well, whu not. I m proletariat. However you make money so that makes you boises(?) . So as I understand it, people should less time contemplating a "God" and should focus on real things.

cuz no money
we abolish it

How are things like sporting events and concerts supposed to work? Are we going to decide who "needs" to attend more and give everyone else the finger? Just a question because that little problem is solved pretty well by money. You want to go, you buy a ticket, you go. How's that supposed to work in your "utopia" where nobody has money? What's the criteria for deciding who gets to sit in one of the finite amounts of seats?

[Duvniask]

The USSR didn't start a world war and kill 10,000,000+ civilians in the countries it invaded (to end said war). It also did not kill all these people in the same amount of time as Nazi Germany or with the same level of industrial efficiency.


Or, rather than your weird conspiratorial fantasies, it's because the Soviet Union wasn't founded on a death cult calling for the genocide of other, lesser races.

So what? Just because Communism isn't racially-discriminatory doesn't change the fact that it singles out a group that is an enemy of everyone else and who is solely responsible for the suffering and exploitation of the majority, is anyone shocked when the natural end-result of such a vicious ideology is bullshit like the USSR 'de-kulakisation' campaign of 'liquidating' an entire class of people deemed by the State to be sabotaging the revolution's attempt to liberate everyone else?

That is what happens when you have an authoritarian state that seeks to silence all dissent. The brutality of the means by which the Soviet Union sought to stifle "counter-revolutionary forces" is directly connected to that.

As for communism in general and its hostility towards the dominant class; I see no difference between it and the hostility and, indeed, violence with which liberalism fought monarchism and aristocracy in the past. Revolutionary fervor or violence always claims innocents or people who may not have deserved to die, even if the end goal is a fair and just society. If you are just as critical of this aspect of liberalism, you must, however, remember that the society you live in (meme not intended) most likely derives from it in at least some way.

The USSR didn't start a world war and kill 10,000,000+ civilians in the countries it invaded (to end said war). It also did not kill all these people in the same amount of time as Nazi Germany or with the same level of industrial efficiency.


Or, rather than your weird conspiratorial fantasies, it's because the Soviet Union wasn't founded on a death cult calling for the genocide of other, lesser races.

We just gonna pretend like the Holodmor and Stalin's purges didn't happen? Are we also gonna pretend that the Soviet Union didn't commit genocide against the Cossacks and initiate one of the largest ethnic cleansings in human history post-WW2?

Quite the disingenuous reading of what I've said.

The fact that Soviet Union (and other regimes like it) committed these atrocities is not uniquely the result of its ideological foundations in communism. The history of industrialization and consolidation of state power has always been a violent one, especially if they go hand in hand.

[Duvniask]

cuz no money
we abolish it

How are things like sporting events and concerts supposed to work? Are we going to decide who "needs" to attend more and give everyone else the finger? Just a question because that little problem is solved pretty well by money. You want to go, you buy a ticket, you go. How's that supposed to work in your "utopia" where nobody has money? What's the criteria for deciding who gets to sit in one of the finite amounts of seats?

I suppose there is more than one solution, but one could be to have people who wish to participate draw lots. In other words, a randomized process where the lucky ones get the seats.

I can of course see an issue, which you may also have noticed. It doesn't account for the fact that some people are willing to spend more money than others because they are bigger fans or have a bigger desire to go, which may drive a change in prices to reflect that. But isn't that by itself also down to luck — that is, whoever happens to have the most money on hand will be the ones to get access? In other words, perhaps the issue here isn't actually new.

[Strahcoin]

I appreciate your logical consistency. But of course, if morality is subjective, then why can't people murder, steal, lie, enslave, etc.? Why do we consider Nazi Germany evil if good and evil are merely opinions? In that case, why have a society founded on those morals? Why not return to our primal instincts and live in caves? And what's the point of survival, if human life has no objective moral value?

Nearly everyone would see this would be ridiculous. However, it's the result of a lack of morality: there would be no moral value in the human life, and there would therefore be no purpose in life.


Why can't land be like a table in that sense?


1. Okay... I address this at the top of this post.
2.Oh, you mean the Constitution of the United States of America?

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Actually, it will mean the creation of more, better jobs and greater standards of living - similarly to how the Industrial Revolution has led to factory jobs, machine tools, and mass production, or how the more recent Information Revolution has led to IT jobs and innovation such as Google, iPhones, eBooks, and computer games.


What incentive does the rich have to prevent potential consumers from accumulating enough wealth to buy their products? (Granted, there's corporate lobbying, but the solution to that is not to put all of their property into the hands of the government - essentially making it a monopoly - but to repeal economic regulations and increase transparency.)

They want to make sure we remain dependent on working for them. It wouldn't be great for the wealthy if people didn't need to labor for their corporations in order to survive

If you don't want to labor for their corporations, then start a new business yourself. Alternatively, just grow your own food and build your own house.

Also, it wouldn't be great for the working-class if the wealthy didn't start the businesses to provide the working-class with jobs.

I appreciate your logical consistency. But of course, if morality is subjective, then why can't people murder, steal, lie, enslave, etc.? Why do we consider Nazi Germany evil if good and evil are merely opinions? In that case, why have a society founded on those morals? Why not return to our primal instincts and live in caves? And what's the point of survival, if human life has no objective moral value?

Nearly everyone would see this would be ridiculous. However, it's the result of a lack of morality: there would be no moral value in the human life, and there would therefore be no purpose in life.


Why can't land be like a table in that sense?


1. Okay... I address this at the top of this post.
2.Oh, you mean the Constitution of the United States of America?

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Actually, it will mean the creation of more, better jobs and greater standards of living - similarly to how the Industrial Revolution has led to factory jobs, machine tools, and mass production, or how the more recent Information Revolution has led to IT jobs and innovation such as Google, iPhones, eBooks, and computer games.


What incentive does the rich have to prevent potential consumers from accumulating enough wealth to buy their products? (Granted, there's corporate lobbying, but the solution to that is not to put all of their property into the hands of the government - essentially making it a monopoly - but to repeal economic regulations and increase transparency.)

Except the new hotness is teaching bots to program other bots, cutting humans out of the equation.

Btw, I have worked at Google. It is not nearly as good as you seem to believe for the vast majority of people who work there. The idea that new technology always makes for more better jobs is not some universal law.

All of human history suggests that human innovation -> more better jobs. Marx thought that the Industrial Revolution was going to be the peak of technology, and he was wrong.

[Kubra]

cuz no money
we abolish it

How are things like sporting events and concerts supposed to work? Are we going to decide who "needs" to attend more and give everyone else the finger? Just a question because that little problem is solved pretty well by money. You want to go, you buy a ticket, you go. How's that supposed to work in your "utopia" where nobody has money? What's the criteria for deciding who gets to sit in one of the finite amounts of seats?

by only having underground punk shows that don't fill up anyways

[Scomagia]

How are things like sporting events and concerts supposed to work? Are we going to decide who "needs" to attend more and give everyone else the finger? Just a question because that little problem is solved pretty well by money. You want to go, you buy a ticket, you go. How's that supposed to work in your "utopia" where nobody has money? What's the criteria for deciding who gets to sit in one of the finite amounts of seats?

I suppose there is more than one solution, but one could be to have people who wish to participate draw lots. In other words, a randomized process where the lucky ones get the seats.

I can of course see an issue, which you may also have noticed. It doesn't account for the fact that some people are willing to spend more money than others because they are bigger fans or have a bigger desire to go, which may drive a change in prices to reflect that. But isn't that by itself also down to luck — that is, whoever happens to have the most money on hand will be the ones to get access? In other words, perhaps the issue here isn't actually new.

I think you are missing a very key difference. Lotteries (when not rigged...which there is precisely zero guarantee of in a communist system) are pure chance.

Money is not pure chance. You may have some portion of your money through chance but it isn't equivocal to a lottery. For one thing, there are obvious ways you can increase your available cash flow (needed for tickets, in this case) that are not dependent on luck. Further, tickets aren't about who "has the most money". If that were the case then tickets would be expensive beyond reason. As it is they are made to be as affordable as possible to maximize sales while still covering overhead and making a profit.

Honestly, that sounds much more fair than some bullshit lottery that the local council leader, czar, first citizen, or whatever other bullshit title you please has probably rigged.

[Scomagia]

How are things like sporting events and concerts supposed to work? Are we going to decide who "needs" to attend more and give everyone else the finger? Just a question because that little problem is solved pretty well by money. You want to go, you buy a ticket, you go. How's that supposed to work in your "utopia" where nobody has money? What's the criteria for deciding who gets to sit in one of the finite amounts of seats?

by only having underground punk shows that don't fill up anyways

Do you have an answer or not?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I have to ask again: has is saved any of the countries where it was instituted?

[Duvniask]

I suppose there is more than one solution, but one could be to have people who wish to participate draw lots. In other words, a randomized process where the lucky ones get the seats.

I can of course see an issue, which you may also have noticed. It doesn't account for the fact that some people are willing to spend more money than others because they are bigger fans or have a bigger desire to go, which may drive a change in prices to reflect that. But isn't that by itself also down to luck — that is, whoever happens to have the most money on hand will be the ones to get access? In other words, perhaps the issue here isn't actually new.

I think you are missing a very key difference. Lotteries (when not rigged...which there is precisely zero guarantee of in a communist system) are pure chance.

Money is not pure chance. You may have some portion of your money through chance but it isn't equivocal to a lottery. For one thing, there are obvious ways you can increase your available cash flow (needed for tickets, in this case) that are not dependent on luck. Further, tickets aren't about who "has the most money". If that were the case then tickets would be expensive beyond reason. As it is they are made to be as affordable as possible to maximize sales while still covering overhead and making a profit.

If practically anyone has a chance, then it's just a matter of buying tickets first. In that case, the solution could instead just having those who sign-up first get the tickets. I've personally witnessed the rush to buy tickets before they're all gone, so this is certainly nothing new.

Honestly, that sounds much more fair than some bullshit lottery that the local council leader, czar, first citizen, or whatever other bullshit title you please has probably rigged.

Why is there somehow more of an incentive to rig it than under a monetary economy (capitalism)? Say two people, A and B, turn up to buy the last available ticket to a concert. Say I was in charge of that concert and person A was my friend. What's stopping me from just rigging it by giving it to A, even if B paid first? If A paid too, no money is lost and I provided my friend with a favor. Whatever is stopping me from doing so - I don't see how it would be different in the absence of money.