Socialists/Communists: They're under your chair RIGHT NOW!

[Rio Grande Do Sul-Porto Alegre]

1 - I said they were needed but doesn't mean other forms couldn't be successful .

2 - One Cooperative filmed by a foreign reporter failed because the people started to complain about money and stuff .

2. Can I see this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7qs_nfLMSc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymZm9O_wsp4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCpKB8uogXI

[Conservative Idealism]

Socialists/Communists: They're under your chair RIGHT NOW!

...I actually looked! That was a dirty trick, title - who knows where those Reds could be at this given moment? If they attempt to create an oppressive police state in order to realize an oddly creepy dream of a stateless and classless society ONE MORE TIME...

[Jassysworth 1]

We need to keep an eye out for communists... always. In America and elsewhere... You don't know how well capitalism works... until you lose it. Look at what happened to Russia, China and every other place where a Communist party took over?

Yeah... One of the reasons America is such a safe country. They have no tolerance for a dangerous ideology that over few mere decades killed hundreds of millions of people through starvation, oppression, forced deportations etc... Thank God the reds lost the Cold War.

Communism looks ''good on paper'' but in practice it's extremely dangerous. And right now, nothing else could screw over America more. Hell, I'd prefer America turned fascist or theocratic... just never communist. With the US military and all of the power of the modern USA in the hands of the commies, they would commit acts of oppression and mass murder that would make Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot look like amateurs.

But what if the Commies are nice Commies?

There are only 2 types of commies...

1) Those who want to seize power and oppress the masses in the name of the workers or some such rhetoric (like Stalin, Mao etc)
2) Someone who doesn't understand how economics works; some kind of dangerous idealist

Sure, some of the people in ''2)'' could be ''nice'' commies. But as soon as steps are made to set up their idealized systems, people in the ''1)'' group move in... play people against each other, take power, and then oppress the people all in the name of the people.

Because, you can't just expect states, classes, and money to disappear and large scale societies to work you know? There has to be a catch...

[Rio Grande Do Sul-Porto Alegre]

1 - I said they were needed but doesn't mean other forms couldn't be successful .

2 - One Cooperative filmed by a foreign reporter failed because the people started to complain about money and stuff .

1. Isn't that self-contradictory?

2. Hold it, if they were operating under a money based system they weren't in a communist society. Or, to be clear, the cooperative movement was not a within a socialistic or communistic society, but a (market) socialist movement within a capitalistic society which is of a fundamentally different character.

1 - No

2 - A Public Television made a novel about the period ( After the coup of 1974 with real facts ) and the main character worked on a factory and it was workers who decided if they sell the products to the people who order it and payed or distributed to peasants and working class .

Those stories aren't fiction and because of those mistakes Portugal had IMF coming to the country in 1977-1978 2 years after the end of the experiment .

[Gorgashia]

But what if the Commies are nice Commies?

There are only 2 types of commies...

1) Those who want to seize power and oppress the masses in the name of the workers or some such rhetoric (like Stalin, Mao etc)
2) Someone who doesn't understand how economics works; some kind of dangerous idealist

Sure, some of the people in ''2)'' could be ''nice'' commies. But as soon as steps are made to set up their idealized systems, people in the ''1)'' group move in... play people against each other, take power, and then oppress the people all in the name of the people.

Because, you can't just expect states, classes, and money to disappear and large scale societies to work you know? There has to be a catch...

So, generalizations are your argument?

Alright, so, if that's true, could you explain Revolutionary Catalonia to me? Because last I recall, they were the type 2 Communists and the type 1 Communists didn't take it over.

Well, yeah, I agree. No society is perfect and I admit that there will always be challenges and problems within all societies. However, I don't think the problem in Communist societies will always be tyrannical leaders holding all the power.

[Conservative Idealism]

There are only 2 types of commies...

1) Those who want to seize power and oppress the masses in the name of the workers or some such rhetoric (like Stalin, Mao etc)
2) Someone who doesn't understand how economics works; some kind of dangerous idealist

Sure, some of the people in ''2)'' could be ''nice'' commies. But as soon as steps are made to set up their idealized systems, people in the ''1)'' group move in... play people against each other, take power, and then oppress the people all in the name of the people.

Because, you can't just expect states, classes, and money to disappear and large scale societies to work you know? There has to be a catch...

So, generalizations are your argument?

Alright, so, if that's true, could you explain Revolutionary Catalonia to me? Because last I recall, they were the type 2 Communists and the type 1 Communists didn't take it over.

Well, yeah, I agree. No society is perfect and I admit that there will always be challenges and problems within all societies. However, I don't think the problem in Communist societies will always be tyrannical leaders holding all the power.

Observations, actually - I, too, can attest to those being the two main types of commies I come across. (Overlaps are THE WORST.)

You're right. The problem in communist societies is that they are unattainable - either because their ideals are too separated from reality, a major shift in human nature is required, or tyrannical leaders hold all of the power.

[Gorgashia]

So, generalizations are your argument?

Alright, so, if that's true, could you explain Revolutionary Catalonia to me? Because last I recall, they were the type 2 Communists and the type 1 Communists didn't take it over.

Well, yeah, I agree. No society is perfect and I admit that there will always be challenges and problems within all societies. However, I don't think the problem in Communist societies will always be tyrannical leaders holding all the power.

Observations, actually - I, too, can attest to those being the two main types of commies I come across. (Overlaps are THE WORST.)

You're right. The problem in communist societies is that they are unattainable - either because their ideals are too separated from reality, a major shift in human nature is required, or tyrannical leaders hold all of the power.

So, I presume you know so much about economics that you can tell wether or not a Communist knows economics or not? And regardless, generalizations are still generalizations.

They aren't that separated from reality. An anarchist society with no currency and participatory economics could exist. I'm, personally, not a Communist, more of a Socialist, but still. Define human nature, please. Again, Revolutionary Catalonia and other such societies didn't run into that problem.

[Conservative Idealism]

Observations, actually - I, too, can attest to those being the two main types of commies I come across. (Overlaps are THE WORST.)

You're right. The problem in communist societies is that they are unattainable - either because their ideals are too separated from reality, a major shift in human nature is required, or tyrannical leaders hold all of the power.

So, I presume you know so much about economics that you can tell wether or not a Communist knows economics or not? And regardless, generalizations are still generalizations.

They aren't that separated from reality. An anarchist society with no currency and participatory economics could exist. I'm, personally, not a Communist, more of a Socialist, but still. Define human nature, please. Again, Revolutionary Catalonia and other such societies didn't run into that problem.

I know enough about economics to realize that communists are mistaken if they believe they can successfully stimulate the economy by modifying the prices on a whim rather than allowing economic forces to take their course. That said, I'm always willing to learn more.

The main problem is that many communists aren't content with an anarchist society. To their credit, their principles govern untold numbers of small communes successfully. Unfortunately, that isn't enough for them - they seek to make the world a haven for a collective society, and while Marx tells them they are fated to win, economics and human nature remind us that they will not succeed for a very long time, if at all.

Human nature is difficult to define, as it is governed not only by logic and reason but also emotion and faith. Greed is very easily introduced into the equation, whether for good or for bad, promoting capitalism over communism in larger societies. We, as people, cling to a system that depends very greatly on mutual trust to even exist. While it has many opponents, at least most realize the catastrophic results that would occur from bursting the bubble our society is built upon...but many communists don't possess this understanding, and are dangerously idealistic. Other communists realize this but don't realize that we, as people, will resist a major change in our nature, meaning any attempt to mold us in their image is unlikely to succeed.

You might wonder, as a socialist, just why we are built on a bubble. The answer is obvious to capitalists - it is to raise the standard of living for everyone unequally, with the rich (at the top of the bubble) benefiting most while the poor (on the fringes) benefit least, but still benefit. We see socialism as popping the bubble and leaving everyone on the flat rock bottom, and communism as burying our society alive.

[Gorgashia]

So, I presume you know so much about economics that you can tell wether or not a Communist knows economics or not? And regardless, generalizations are still generalizations.

They aren't that separated from reality. An anarchist society with no currency and participatory economics could exist. I'm, personally, not a Communist, more of a Socialist, but still. Define human nature, please. Again, Revolutionary Catalonia and other such societies didn't run into that problem.

I know enough about economics to realize that communists are mistaken if they believe they can successfully stimulate the economy by modifying the prices on a whim rather than allowing economic forces to take their course. That said, I'm always willing to learn more.

The main problem is that many communists aren't content with an anarchist society. To their credit, their principles govern untold numbers of small communes successfully. Unfortunately, that isn't enough for them - they seek to make the world a haven for a collective society, and while Marx tells them they are fated to win, economics and human nature remind us that they will not succeed for a very long time, if at all.

Human nature is difficult to define, as it is governed not only by logic and reason but also emotion and faith. Greed is very easily introduced into the equation, whether for good or for bad, promoting capitalism over communism in larger societies. We, as people, cling to a system that depends very greatly on mutual trust to even exist. While it has many opponents, at least most realize the catastrophic results that would occur from bursting the bubble our society is built upon...but many communists don't possess this understanding, and are dangerously idealistic. Other communists realize this but don't realize that we, as people, will resist a major change in our nature, meaning any attempt to mold us in their image is unlikely to succeed.

You might wonder, as a socialist, just why we are built on a bubble. The answer is obvious to capitalists - it is to raise the standard of living for everyone unequally, with the rich (at the top of the bubble) benefiting most while the poor (on the fringes) benefit least, but still benefit. We see socialism as popping the bubble and leaving everyone on the flat rock bottom, and communism as burying our society alive.

Well, the thing is that Communist economic systems are mostly Socialist economic systems and there are actually quite a few of them. For example, the Free Territory's economic system was agricultural and industrial communes trading with each other in a weird barter economy, if I recall correctly. So, prices weren't too much of an issue because they didn't really exist. However, there are some economic forces at work in this system. Take supply and demand, for example, is still quite present. The agricultural society has plenty of wheat, but not a lot of tools, thus, tools are valuable. The industrial commune has a lot of tools, but not a lot of wheat, thus wheat is valuable. Because they both value what the other has to offer, the communes will likely make a deal to trade wheat for tools and tools for wheat that is fair for both sides since one of these products isn't valuable in one of the communes, but the other is.

That isn't entirely true. While the goal of the Communist movement as a whole is to create a Communist world, every individual movement only wants to create their own Communist society and is unlikely to start forcing its ideology on neighboring societies. Especially if the movement is a peaceful one. I will agree that some do think that a world revolution is a feasable idea, but, personally, I don't think it's possible to organize a movement that large.

I do agree on your summation of human nature, but I feel that there are some contradictions in your argument. Firstly, you say we depend on mutual trust relationships. These relationships do exist in Communism as I have shown between the argicultural and industrial communes. They trusted that the other would have what they would need and would need what they had as well. As for humans resisting change in their nature, well, man has been a prejudiced creature for a long time, but does that make the fight against it worthless? Just because something is hard doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

While that's all fair and good, and I appreciate you sharing your viewpoint, viewpoints depend on the viewer. I always saw Capitalism as the coninuation of heirarchy in human society, but lessened from the previous heirarchy. Whereas the medieval landlord was absolute and the peasant was stuck being a peasant, the manager can fall to the bottom if he/she fucks up really badly and that the worker has a chance of rising up the ladder. Basically, Capitalism is heirarchy that is blended with meritocracy. However, I believe that said ladder shouldn't exist and that the workers can manage themselves just as efficiently. Cooperatives in the United States and other Capitalist countries are actually fairing well in the markets. I seek to create a society where the cooperative and other self-owned businesses are the norm.

[Free South Califas]

Fixed:

I tried watching Patriocracy but had to stop when they used the word "far-left" and "Congress" in the same sentence without it being a joke.

McCarthyism is still alive in America. Socialism is widely feared here but the real fear lies in ignorance. Most people are for a workplace democracy but they don't identify that with socialism because they don't know what socialism is.

The thing is:

socialism can exist within a capitalist market but capitalism can't exist within a socialist market.

I disagree with you and the Honorable Doctor on that point and on its relevance to...well, anything, honestly. We've seen state capitalism flourish under Stalin and later Communist-run states. Furthermore, while you equate workplace democracy with socialism, it's possible to have either without the other, and anyway, you can have capitalism (distributionism) and/or a free market (mutualism, market socialism) within a socialist context. I think a lot is being left out here.

Workplace democracy is great and helps a lot in attaining socialism, but socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the workers, after all. Imagine Red Star Stapler Company, with 10 workers including Tom and Stacy. If Stacy owns the company but Tom was freely elected General Manager by the lot, then, it's a democratic workplace but not exactly socialist. If each worker owns a tenth of the company's own shares, but Stacy was named Secretary-General For Life in the deal, it's socialist but not a democracy. (They have the means to keep Stacy in check, but not by voting.) If they each own a tenth of the total machinery and documentation at RSSC, but management decisions were made by fiat of the International Authoritarian Communist Business Society (imagine their meetings!), you could say it was socialistic but definitely not democratic. Etc.

Basically, I think there's a lot of freedom of choice being abstracted away from. However, I appreciate that you engage with the issue in good faith. You definitely stand out on NSG in that regard.

Most people are perfectly fine with the existence of workers cooperatives and workplace democracy within the overall capitalist market - they just don't want those organization methods to be mandatory as they would be under a socialist system.

I think you're abstracting away from class where it's actually relevant - what you call a 'mandatory organization method' might, to the extent it exists, be considered a 'civil right won' by the workers you want to have languishing at the bottom (or even middle) of hierarchical structures.

[Thafoo]

Socialists/Communists: They're under your chair RIGHT NOW!

...I actually looked! That was a dirty trick, title - who knows where those Reds could be at this given moment? If they attempt to create an oppressive police state in order to realize an oddly creepy dream of a stateless and classless society ONE MORE TIME...

They're converting your dust bunnies as we speak.