|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted May 20, 2014 12:52 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 00:52, 20 May 2014.
|
artu said:
No Xerox, it is not the same thing at all. Communism is communism, because and only if, it tries to replace capitalism. What you're talking about is a hippy commune, not a communist society.
It supposedly not being possible to establish a communal society just because there's also capitalism elsewhere is just an excuse to carry on with coercion. Ironically, that view also makes it impossible for the ideology to ever be realized.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 12:56 AM |
|
|
|
That "elsewhere" you talk about is not another continent. It is the society and state the commune exists in. That's WHY there is the idea of a revolution in the first place. Because communism needs a state phase.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 01:00 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 01:01, 20 May 2014.
|
They only initially need to interact with the capitalist system by purchasing land (since like all land is claimed, the second option is to build a communal ship or move to Mars). After that, or at least long-term when selfsuffiency is reached, there's no need for capitalist interaction. Communism being impossible because there's capitalism is just a fallacy to justify coercive means.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 01:00 AM |
|
|
Bak:
If your commune could produce enough stuff to pay off its taxes, it could still function. As for a firm within communism, if I tried working for someone else, the communist overlords would stop me even though it'd be a voluntary exchange.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 01:03 AM |
|
|
|
Once again, you guys are mistaking a hippy commune for a communist society. There's nothing to add, since you keep doing it.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 01:09 AM |
|
|
A communist society doesn't require for capitalism to be completely absent from the universe. That's impossible and ridiculous.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 01:11 AM |
|
|
Most ideologies want nothing to do with capitalism. Most ethical codes, most religions too. The faceless corporation, the corporation as a citizen, these are all new concepts.
Communism goes further than such basic things.
Private property doesn't exist.
Now go back to topic.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 01:14 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 01:15, 20 May 2014.
|
The existence of a communist society is not only absence of capitalism but also existence of qualifications of a communist society!
What you suggest is no different than suggesting militia is military or a hot dog stand is a corporation.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 01:18 AM |
|
|
Sooooooo what are the qualifications?
No bourgeoisie government, no capitalism, what else?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 01:19 AM |
|
|
artu said:
What you suggest is no different than suggesting militia is military or a hot dog stand is a corporation.
A sufficiently organized militia is a military, so I'm not sure what your point is. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 01:27 AM |
|
|
No, an institutional military in the modern sense of the word and militia as in 25 farmers with rifles gathering around is not the same thing.
Buying land under a capitalist state to live as a commune and trying to unite the working classes of all nations to form a new type of state are also very different things.
Communism was not invented as an ideology for sub-urban minorities looking for an authentic get-away. It has a bigger agenda than "let a few of us get together and cultivate our own tomato and live happily ever after."
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 01:29 AM |
|
|
MVass, do I really need to spell out why converting your commune's products into currency in order to pay off a capitalist father state isn't communism?
As for the overlords, I don't think you understand precisely what we're discussing. Communism is not the bolshevism of the Soviet Union. There are no communist overlords, or overlords whatsoever, in the theoretical society we're talking about. It's cumbersome to have to adapt unconditionally to American lingo in every discussion on here.
Libertarianism doesn't imply capitalism. Communism doesn't necessitate bolshevism. And football doesn't require a helmet and a large leather egg.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 01:29 AM |
|
|
artu said:
No, an institutional military in the modern sense of the word and militia as in 25 farmers with rifles gathering around is not the same thing.
That's one kind of militia. Another is Joseph Kony's Lord's Resistance Army.
Edit: Bak, so you're saying if I choose to work for someone else under communism, no one will stop me?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 01:32 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
As for a firm within communism, if I tried working for someone else, the communist overlords would stop me even though it'd be a voluntary exchange.
? the socialization of production and means of production doesn't forbid you from making exchanges?
wouldn't that rather prevent that anomaly in capitalism where some people can massively hoard resources, preventing anyone from using them (or even from exchanging at all, if that resources is money)?
and, wouldn't you work WITH someone else, rather than FOR someone else, since the means of production are collectively owned?
well, in reality communism is about USSR taking over the world and creating a world-wide totalitarian state 
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 01:33 AM |
|
Edited by Baklava at 01:55, 20 May 2014.
|
@MVass
Calling it an army doesn't make it one. It's an armed rabble, a group of guerilla raiders and child soldiers with hardly any organization, discipline or doctrine to speak of. You can't possibly call that a military in the modern sense of the word, but it's a good example of the oversimplifications you tend towards.
What I'm saying, MVass, is that, just like it's virtually impossible to peacefully create a communist society within a capitalist one, the vice versa applies as well. There'd be no need for anyone to stop you, at any rate, simply because the workers would be better off where they'd be at the moment. You'd need to kickstart one hell of a coercive process in order to change that - an entire economy would have to be set up, and then promptly regulated, secured and enforced, with its own rules.
@both you and Xerox
Certain forms of this theoretical communism on a local scale did exist in certain places at certain points. Catalonia in the Spanish civil war, as well as the Ukrainian Free Territory during the Russian one, were examples of bolshevik-opposed, libertarian, anarchist forms of communism (including optional, non-coercive collectivization - in both urban and rural areas). Even the Zapatistas in today's Mexico, to a point. But these operated independently from the state due to turmoil and lack of control. They all collapsed due to outside influence - the commune in Spain fell due to bickering with the Soviet-backed bolsheviks among the antifascist forces, and of course Franco's military onslaught. The one in Ukraine was defamed and eventually destroyed, again by the bolshevik majority under Lenin.
Independence is necessary for these societies. If today's states were more open to relinquishing de facto control over certain chosen areas, this experiment might prove functional. But the more functional it gets, the more dangerous and, at the very least, unprofitable. Therefore, no state's too fond of allowing it, and therefore, the idea of an armed revolution.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 01:34 AM |
|
|
And the ideal anarcho-capitalist agenda is to end government all over the world. That doesn't mean anarchocapitalism can't also exist on a smaller scale.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 01:52 AM |
|
|
|
It can START on a smaller scale. Ending the class opression of the capitalist state on fellow workers is a major, core element of communism.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 01:55 AM |
|
|
And I think they should stay on that small scale.
That has nothing to do with me not understanding their opposition towards the capitalist world order.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 02:04 AM |
|
|
|
No, the small scale is not what you suggest. For the hunderth time, that's a hippy commune not communism. I meant changing the world order isnt likely their immediate goal but fighting the capitalist regime they live under is.
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 02:04 AM |
|
Edited by Baklava at 02:19, 20 May 2014.
|
I added a lot of stuff to my previous post. I'll underline once more that one of the main tenets of communism is internationalism - people connecting through their lot in life and ideals rather than places of birth, in order to take down what is perceived as the oppression of statehood, nationalism and organized religion. People who subscribe to this idea believe there are certain economic principles that go with this, and that they're preferable to the capitalist system (which they see as a cross-period between ancient feudalism and the communism of tomorrow*).
As it's unlikely that those who benefit from capitalism the most would simply step down, or even allow this to happen through popular choice, there is a line of thought that proposes a revolution once societies have "evolved" enough for this kind of system to work. From this point onward, different communists, syndicalists, anarchists etc. tend to disagree and bicker a lot. It's simple, really.
This is all slightly going off-topic, though, isn't it.
*This is why Marx was sceptical about the idea of the revolution starting off in the still largely feudal Russian Empire. Indeed, some of his works cite the Russians as the natural enemies of the revolution, considering that when the capitalist world crosses to communism, the Russians, with their numbers, influence and manpower, will have only freshly crossed to capitalism, causing a dangerous political rupture. In these works, he even mentions the usefulness of a certain Russo-German mutual enmity, in the very real case of a conflict.
Marx was not much of a believer in God, and therefore failed to anticipate His infinite knack for irony.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
