Communism: Discussion on practicalities

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Personally the path I as I envision it is creating unions at businesses via agitation, and through those unions we establish a network outside or workplaces that connect the community as a whole.
Once the community is connected we use Mutual Aid to alleviate social ills as well as bring more people on board.
Public shelter, community clinic, and soup kitchens will help to alleviate social ills directly instead of relying on money or charity.

Curious: what do you think of the revolutionary general strike?

[Genivaria]

Personally the path I as I envision it is creating unions at businesses via agitation, and through those unions we establish a network outside or workplaces that connect the community as a whole.
Once the community is connected we use Mutual Aid to alleviate social ills as well as bring more people on board.
Public shelter, community clinic, and soup kitchens will help to alleviate social ills directly instead of relying on money or charity.

This is an admirable goal and I agree with it, but again, I have to question the realism here. People aren't nice or selfless for the most part. Some people, like me and presumably you, will do things without asking for a return, but most want something back. Profit, pleasure, etc.

While I think this is debatable for the most part we're not asking them to work and contribute 'for free' simply because there's no money.
I mean people already sell their labor for the sake of money so they can live, but if for example they put in a minimum amount of work that week and then get to reap the rewards of taking from the public food market and living rent free in the community.
To put that another way, if you helped cook the meal or supply the water, tinder, etc than you aren't getting a meal for 'free'.

[Genivaria]

Personally the path I as I envision it is creating unions at businesses via agitation, and through those unions we establish a network outside or workplaces that connect the community as a whole.
Once the community is connected we use Mutual Aid to alleviate social ills as well as bring more people on board.
Public shelter, community clinic, and soup kitchens will help to alleviate social ills directly instead of relying on money or charity.

Curious: what do you think of the revolutionary general strike?

I think it is one potential method but requires a great deal up people on your side or it will simmer out.
It is my belief that building networks via Mutual Aid and Unionization will make it so that we are prepared for such an event, should it come to that.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Personally the path I as I envision it is creating unions at businesses via agitation, and through those unions we establish a network outside or workplaces that connect the community as a whole.
Once the community is connected we use Mutual Aid to alleviate social ills as well as bring more people on board.
Public shelter, community clinic, and soup kitchens will help to alleviate social ills directly instead of relying on money or charity.

This is an admirable goal and I agree with it, but again, I have to question the realism here. People aren't nice or selfless for the most part. Some people, like me and presumably you, will do things without asking for a return, but most want something back. Profit, pleasure, etc.

Are people selfish, or have they just been raised in a selfish society? Four or five centuries ago, people would say that it was the nature of humans for some to be kings and others to be serfs.

[Fatimida]

This is an admirable goal and I agree with it, but again, I have to question the realism here. People aren't nice or selfless for the most part. Some people, like me and presumably you, will do things without asking for a return, but most want something back. Profit, pleasure, etc.

While I think this is debatable for the most part we're not asking them to work and contribute 'for free' simply because there's no money.
I mean people already sell their labor for the sake of money so they can live, but if for example they put in a minimum amount of work that week and then get to reap the rewards of taking from the public food market and living rent free in the community.
To put that another way, if you helped cook the meal or supply the water, tinder, etc than you aren't getting a meal for 'free'.

That is true, but many will still want more than that. They'll want to be above you. Above everyone else. They'll want to be rich, famous, etc.

[Fauzjhia]

Non-Marxian strains of leftist, socialist, thought absolutely do exist. For example, the intellectual tradition of left-syndicalism is not that related to Marx.

I never claimed Leftism was Communist. And yes, non-marxist Socialism does exist. Not all Socialism wants to establish Communism. But the idea came from Communism and is inherently linked to it. You cannot be Socialist then claim you hate Communism.

NON marxist socialist ? are you serious, Marxist is the lens we use to criticize capitalism and qualify the conflict between social classes, it might not be exact, and no theory are exact, because we would be like robot if our action could predicted by a theory. But You cannot be socialism without aggreeing to Marx Analysis.

as far as I know. Marxist can used to analyse (communist regimes) too.

And yes, all socialism want to establish communism, its the END goal, the dream, the utopia, but we do not agree about the ROAD that lead to communism, we can clearly see that the soviet road does not to our utopia.
here we are debatting around the definition of the word communism and its really pointless.

[Fatimida]

This is an admirable goal and I agree with it, but again, I have to question the realism here. People aren't nice or selfless for the most part. Some people, like me and presumably you, will do things without asking for a return, but most want something back. Profit, pleasure, etc.

Are people selfish, or have they just been raised in a selfish society? Four or five centuries ago, people would say that it was the nature of humans for some to be kings and others to be serfs.

That's....still a mainstream view in many circles. Even still, greed and want is a natural impulse of humans. You want to leave more to your kids, or you want more for yourself. Be it for pleasure, fame, any number of things. Everyone has felt it and everyone acts on it whether you realize or accept it or not.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

I never claimed Leftism was Communist. And yes, non-marxist Socialism does exist. Not all Socialism wants to establish Communism. But the idea came from Communism and is inherently linked to it. You cannot be Socialist then claim you hate Communism.

NON marxist socialist ? are you serious, Marxist is the lens we use to criticize capitalism and qualify the conflict between social classes, it might not be exact, and no theory are exact, because we would be like robot if our action could predicted by a theory. But You cannot be socialism without aggreeing to Marx Analysis.

as far as I know. Marxist can used to analyse (communist regimes) too.

And yes, all socialism want to establish communism, its the END goal, the dream, the utopia, but we do not agree about the ROAD that lead to communism, we can clearly see that the soviet road does not to our utopia.
here we are debatting around the definition of the word communism and its really pointless.

I accept Marxian analysis of capitalism. I do not accept the alternative framework he offers. That means I am not a Marxist. In any case, it's just an objective fact that syndicalism developed independent of Marxian thought. It just isn't the same intellectual tradition. This is historical fact.

[Genivaria]

While I think this is debatable for the most part we're not asking them to work and contribute 'for free' simply because there's no money.
I mean people already sell their labor for the sake of money so they can live, but if for example they put in a minimum amount of work that week and then get to reap the rewards of taking from the public food market and living rent free in the community.
To put that another way, if you helped cook the meal or supply the water, tinder, etc than you aren't getting a meal for 'free'.

That is true, but many will still want more than that. They'll want to be above you. Above everyone else. They'll want to be rich, famous, etc.

'Rich' is a meaningless term in a post-money society, and if you mean fame and respect from their peers than I'd argue that's far more obtainable under a system where the financial barriers to advancement have been removed.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Are people selfish, or have they just been raised in a selfish society? Four or five centuries ago, people would say that it was the nature of humans for some to be kings and others to be serfs.

That's....still a mainstream view in many circles. Even still, greed and want is a natural impulse of humans. You want to leave more to your kids, or you want more for yourself. Be it for pleasure, fame, any number of things. Everyone has felt it and everyone acts on it whether you realize or accept it or not.

For one, I don't think so. But two, the predominance of nurture over nature is obvious. Are these impulses so strong that we could not adequately suppress them by inculcating the value of cooperation and mutual aid as a society?

[Fatimida]

'Rich' is a meaningless term in a post-money society

No kidding it's in the name. I mean on the transition to it. You can't expect people to just submit to that while knowing what the end goal is.

and if you mean fame and respect from their peers than I'd argue that's far more obtainable under a system where the financial barriers to advancement have been removed.

From more than that. From the entire world. They'll want to be like Pewdiepie, the President, AOC, etc. Name any populist or celebrity, they want to be like them.

[Disgraces]

I don't think a stateless, moneyless and classless society is possible.

[Fatimida]

For one, I don't think so.

China. Most of Africa. North Korea. Name any modern dictatorship or 3rd world country.

Are these impulses so strong that we could not adequately suppress them by inculcating the value of cooperation and mutual aid as a society?

Yes. There will always be deviants and the chances are those deviants are going to resist. This is ignoring how you even get to that point in the first place.

I don't think a stateless, moneyless and classless society is possible.

Nor I.

[Genivaria]

'Rich' is a meaningless term in a post-money society

No kidding it's in the name. I mean on the transition to it. You can't expect people to just submit to that while knowing what the end goal is.

and if you mean fame and respect from their peers than I'd argue that's far more obtainable under a system where the financial barriers to advancement have been removed.

From more than that. From the entire world. They'll want to be like Pewdiepie, the President, AOC, etc. Name any populist or celebrity, they want to be like them.

No kidding it's in the name. I mean on the transition to it. You can't expect people to just submit to that while knowing what the end goal is.

My apologies than, I misunderstood.
Yes those on top will resist the removal of the system which gives them such privileges, that is not a surprise the nobility and slave plantation owners resisted as well.
And I don't see the issue with wanting to be famous.

[Disgraces]

Non-Marxian strains of leftist, socialist, thought absolutely do exist. For example, the intellectual tradition of left-syndicalism is not that related to Marx.

I never claimed Leftism was Communist. And yes, non-marxist Socialism does exist. Not all Socialism wants to establish Communism. But the idea came from Communism and is inherently linked to it. You cannot be Socialist then claim you hate Communism.

There are anti communist socialists I'm pretty sure

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

China. Most of Africa. North Korea. Name any modern dictatorship or 3rd world country.

Yes. There will always be deviants and the chances are those deviants are going to resist. This is ignoring how you even get to that point in the first place.

Kesebir, 2011
“[Nowak] proposes that cooperation is the third principle of evolution, after mutation and selection. Sure, mutations generate genetic diversity and selection picks the individuals best adapted to their environment. Yet it is only cooperation, according to Nowak, that can explain the creative, constructive side of evolution—the one that led from cells to multicellular creatures to humans to villages to cities.”

“Benkler recounts that in any given experiment where participants have to make a choice between behaving selfishly and behaving altruistically, only about 30 percent of people behave selfishly, and in virtually no human society studied to date have the majority of people consistently behaved selfishly.”

Lots more where that came from. Anyways, if human society had not developed ways of controlling deviancy, then prisons, jails, courts, mental institutions, social pressure, public shaming, etc. would not exist.

[Genivaria]

NON marxist socialist ? are you serious, Marxist is the lens we use to criticize capitalism and qualify the conflict between social classes, it might not be exact, and no theory are exact, because we would be like robot if our action could predicted by a theory. But You cannot be socialism without aggreeing to Marx Analysis.

as far as I know. Marxist can used to analyse (communist regimes) too.

And yes, all socialism want to establish communism, its the END goal, the dream, the utopia, but we do not agree about the ROAD that lead to communism, we can clearly see that the soviet road does not to our utopia.
here we are debatting around the definition of the word communism and its really pointless.

I accept Marxian analysis of capitalism. I do not accept the alternative framework he offers. That means I am not a Marxist. In any case, it's just an objective fact that syndicalism developed independent of Marxian thought. It just isn't the same intellectual tradition. This is historical fact.

Yes Syndicalism is distinct from Marxism, as is the Anarcho-Communism that I'm talking about, for that I like to Peter Kropotkin not Marx.

[Fatimida]

Yes those on top will resist the removal of the system which gives them such privileges, that is not a surprise the nobility and slave plantation owners resisted as well.

And they won. Slavery still exists. Nobility still exists. It's all under a different name.

And I don't see the issue with wanting to be famous.

Nothing, by itself. But in an egalitarian world, it will be difficult to do so.

[Fatimida]

China. Most of Africa. North Korea. Name any modern dictatorship or 3rd world country.

Yes. There will always be deviants and the chances are those deviants are going to resist. This is ignoring how you even get to that point in the first place.

Kesebir, 2011
“[Nowak] proposes that cooperation is the third principle of evolution, after mutation and selection. Sure, mutations generate genetic diversity and selection picks the individuals best adapted to their environment. Yet it is only cooperation, according to Nowak, that can explain the creative, constructive side of evolution—the one that led from cells to multicellular creatures to humans to villages to cities.”

“Benkler recounts that in any given experiment where participants have to make a choice between behaving selfishly and behaving altruistically, only about 30 percent of people behave selfishly, and in virtually no human society studied to date have the majority of people consistently behaved selfishly.”

Lots more where that came from. Anyways, if human society had not developed ways of controlling deviancy, then prisons, jails, courts, mental institutions, social pressure, public shaming, etc. would not exist.

30% is an enormous amount given this is supposed to be egalitarian. And by deviancy, I mean deviancy from the cultural/societal norm. Like the norm of egalitarianism you want.

[Genivaria]

Yes those on top will resist the removal of the system which gives them such privileges, that is not a surprise the nobility and slave plantation owners resisted as well.

And they won. Slavery still exists. Nobility still exists. It's all under a different name.

And I don't see the issue with wanting to be famous.

Nothing, by itself. But in an egalitarian world, it will be difficult to do so.

It would be far easier in fact, again when you remove money as an obstacle to pursuing your passion than it makes it much easier to become a world famous doctor, scientist, or artist.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Kesebir, 2011
“[Nowak] proposes that cooperation is the third principle of evolution, after mutation and selection. Sure, mutations generate genetic diversity and selection picks the individuals best adapted to their environment. Yet it is only cooperation, according to Nowak, that can explain the creative, constructive side of evolution—the one that led from cells to multicellular creatures to humans to villages to cities.”

“Benkler recounts that in any given experiment where participants have to make a choice between behaving selfishly and behaving altruistically, only about 30 percent of people behave selfishly, and in virtually no human society studied to date have the majority of people consistently behaved selfishly.”

Lots more where that came from. Anyways, if human society had not developed ways of controlling deviancy, then prisons, jails, courts, mental institutions, social pressure, public shaming, etc. would not exist.

30% is an enormous amount given this is supposed to be egalitarian. And by deviancy, I mean deviancy from the cultural/societal norm. Like the norm of egalitarianism you want.

30% is for people raised in a capitalist society that worships Mammon. In any case, syndicalism is not incompatible with individualism. In fact, the economic freedom of libertarian socialism promotes individualism.

[Genivaria]

30% is an enormous amount given this is supposed to be egalitarian. And by deviancy, I mean deviancy from the cultural/societal norm. Like the norm of egalitarianism you want.

30% is for people raised in a capitalist society that worships Mammon. In any case, syndicalism is not incompatible with individualism. In fact, the economic freedom of libertarian socialism promotes individualism.

I'd agree. This idea that Capitalism encourages individualism only holds weight if you ignore everyone below the business tycoons, every factor worker, waiter, office worker etc are told that they need to do what's best FOR THE COMPANY.
The Hustle Culture that we see in Corporate life is authoritarian collectivism masquerading as free individualism.

[Fauzjhia]

I accept Marxian analysis of capitalism. I do not accept the alternative framework he offers. That means I am not a Marxist. In any case, it's just an objective fact that syndicalism developed independent of Marxian thought. It just isn't the same intellectual tradition. This is historical fact.

Yes Syndicalism is distinct from Marxism, as is the Anarcho-Communism that I'm talking about, for that I like to Peter Kropotkin not Marx.

there was no such thing as Trade Union, or syndicate when Marx analysed capitalist

Trade Unions/ syndicate have been a way to counter the bourgeois class and force them to make concession. Which they did in order to assure their hegemony. So we can't say trade union/syndicalism is non-marxism

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Most people like their private property more than "owning" a share of their work place. From govt they own a share of the road and the park. But they do not buy asphalt and fix the pot holes. Only some of them pick up dog doo or litter. It is "someone elses problem". Compare with how quickly they fix a hole in their own roof. People care for and protect their own property.

The only way to promote collective property to those people is if they never have to work again! "Fully-automated etc"

Wtf is this. Worker co-ops aren't like states where you can't opt out and are crushed with violence if you step out of line. You receive the appropriate share of the profits and are able to provide your input in democratic decisions on the business.

By your logic, we should abolish any concept of partial ownership of something.

[Fatimida]

Wtf is this. Worker co-ops aren't like states where you can't opt out and are crushed with violence if you step out of line. You receive the appropriate share of the profits and are able to provide your input in democratic decisions on the business.

By your logic, we should abolish any concept of partial ownership of something.

I think he was mocking Communism