but would the corporations not survive the revolution and continue exploiting their workers?

And even if there were no coporations what would stop people getting together and forming mini-armies that would live off the work of the others?

Written by [user id=3152] on 29.08.2006 at 17:19

but would the corporations not survive the revolution and continue exploiting their workers?

If the revolution is aimed at government, they will. If the revolution is aimed at the ruling class in general... well, how can corporations survive when there is no workers willing to work for them?

Written by [user id=3152] on 29.08.2006 at 17:19

And even if there were no coporations what would stop people getting together and forming mini-armies that would live off the work of the others?

And that's why I say we still aren't ready for Anarchy.
It is a fact though that agression should decrease once authoritarian structure is abolished and that demand for others' goods should decrease once the resources are properly allocated.
Plus, something like that could be considered a crime. And organised crime is nearly non-existant in speciffic Anarchy systems.

Besides, Anarchy worked just fine in Africa for a very long time, which is a proof that it can be done.

Yep, thats a pretty fair idea i guess. I still prefer communism, it strikes me as being so much more beneficial to the population in general, but anarchy as you put it is certainly preferable to capitalism.

Written by [user id=1868] on 29.08.2006 at 10:46

And how do you do that today? You get what you produce, it's simple as that. The main difference would be that there would be no one who can legally "steal" results of your hard work.
You'd be still free to trade your wares and services, which means there would be a free market. And why shouldn't there be? Anarchism is higher (true) form of Democracy, after all.

well what do you mean by "legaly" steal results? as far as i know today you cant steal legaly (unless you are the gov). and everybody gets what they deserve? i dont agree with that because it doesnt exist today. a child who's parents died gets sent to an orphanage and end up later living on the street, did they deserve that because they knew no better? and as long as someone has something someone else wants there always will be theft. even back in the USSR where most of the countries where going through mass poverty people still stole your boots and gloves if you didnt watch them all the time. theft cannot be avoided unless you can control the human mind fully without flaw.

but think of it this way. a communistic state where there is no higher power and everyone's word is equil (or atleast as equil as it can get) gets into a dispute with another state, to a point where it leads to "war". who funds it? and who controls these funds? if everybody votes on that then wouldn't that be democracy in its pure? and if a small group of appointed people control it then wouldnt that again cross out communism?


@Frosty
revolution does need someone to lead it on a smaller scale. yes anarchy chaos and such does start one but a revolution has a goal and someone needs to organize for that goal even on a minor scale, you can just go shotting random people because then it will be revolution towards nothing (looks at all the previous revolutions they all had a few names in the highlights). and if somehow a revolution completely without leaders progresses then after the anarchy there needs to be organization and that always requiers someone to lead even if for a few moments. Think of a kindergarden class at play (damn you chaotic kids ) but when they need to organize back into class they cant do it themselves someone always has to lead them.
yes one person might know what to do in the long run, but the more people you look at collectivly the stupider they seem togather

@SkattleSkank: It seems I have to explain everything in order to explain anything...

First of all, anarchy has nothing to do with chaos. The word itself stands for "without rulers", which refers to common people being in charge of their own lives and not being controlled by any form of government or ruling class in general. It is based around the idea of small communities, which take care of their members and possibly maintain trade with neighbour communities.
What I mean by legal "stealing" is that people in charge of the workers take more than what they deserve, just because they can and know how. In Anarchy there's no charge over workers so such "Stealing" isn't possible. I never meant the theft which you talk about.
However:
Authoritarian structures increase number of crimes (including theft) commited. Anarchy and communism aren't authoritarian structures.
Anarchistic systems, where all members of community were circularly taking care of guard duty, caused extreme decrease of common crime and nearly ellimination of organised crime.
Theft isn't as rewarding when allocation of resources is square.

Now to clear up another thing. I'm a supporter of anarchy, not communism. I mean I wouldn't mind communistic world order, but I rather prefer the former.
But to answer your question:
The fact is, anarchy is democracy in its pure. And since communism and anarchy are so similar, then I don't see why communism shouldn't have democratic elements just as well.
And I don't think the example you gave is valid for communism...

skattle: There are no nations in a communist society. No nations, no wars. simple.

And theft can be prevented by eliminating the causes of theft (inequality in distribution of wealth). Why steal your neighbour's Porsche when you have your own one?

Finally, the legal stealing he refers to (i think) the theft of surplus value from the workers by corporations, when the companies do not pay the workers what their labour is worth to them.

Written by [user id=3152] on 29.08.2006 at 20:11

skattle: There are no nations in a communist society. No nations, no wars. simple.

And theft can be prevented by eliminating the causes of theft (inequality in distribution of wealth). Why steal your neighbour's Porsche when you have your own one?

Finally, the legal stealing he refers to (i think) the theft of surplus value from the workers by corporations, when the companies do not pay the workers what their labour is worth to them.

heheh you think that with communism EVERYONE would be able to own a porsche (btw how can you really OWN something in communism. anyway i cant really imagine how can be concept of owning something abolished)? and youre still talking about inequality in distribution of wealth in that case, who do you think should decide how to distribute it equally, i can imagine those arguments given by the numbers of poeple in working class).

btw: SkattleSkank youre a pretty clever girl. i see you can handle most of the stuff from Draklar and Frosty just by yourself . good job

It strikes me as obvious that porsche was just an example. At least it works better than saying "Why steal your neighbour's coffee table when you have your own one?"

the decisions about who gets priority on goods and services will be taken by the community together, based on whatever they think important.

And the porsche bit was an example, but why the hell not? Do you truly think there's a reason why porsches are as expensive and in short supply as they are apart from the fact that porsche set their prices deliberately prohibitively high? It would be easy to mass produce them on the same scale as fords or toyotas, but they just don't, because they have a selected market which they supply to. If you remove profit and exclusivity from the equation, as would happen in a communist society, there is absolutely no reason why everyone who wanted a porsche could not have one, if the community decided that providing porsches for their residents was important.

I'd like to make it known that i highly object to the far left! I cannot believe that people actually think it's okay for everyone to make the same wage. That means that if i take a sanitary collector and a lawyer from my country and place them in a Communist country.....their pay will be the same!

The theory of communisum is a very good thing... Everyone is equal, everyone has the same oporunities... ect.
But the sad reality is that humans are manipulative, greedy, power hungry, and currupt. This is the main reason communisum will never work... Now socialisum on the other hand is an amazing style of governance... Just look at sweden... 1 place id love to live there.

Written by [user id=3152] on 01.09.2006 at 03:56

the decisions about who gets priority on goods and services will be taken by the community together, based on whatever they think important.

oh really? so its just a matter of little manipulation here and there. offering your vote for the stuff someone might want but cant get right now in exchange for their vote. you cant get rid of this approach in neither system, and this is one of the things that ruin communism, because it depends on this concept.

No danzig, nobody is payed at all in a communist society (not country: communism requires the abolition of nations). You do not have a job, you work at what you feel you want to do, so nobody employs you. The fruits of your labours are free to all, and the fruits of others' labours are free to all.

Frostbitten: the greed and corruption is a result of capitalism, not "human nature". I'm no idealist, i realize that people are bastards generally, BUT you don't need all happy friendly hippies to make communism work. It's just a different way of arranging the means of production, distribution and finance.

Black_Handed: your example is somewhat senseless. You are applying capitalist standards to an system incomparable with capitalism. Also, there's such a thing as a "secret ballot", that removes this little problem. If there is no way of checking on whether the other person keeps to their end of the bargain, these deals are pointless. Not to mention that it would never be done on anywhere near grand enough a scale to effect the overall votes of millions. Finally, why would anyone want stuff that wasn't being produced? because they would be in a tiny minority, and thus unable to make an impact on the vote even if they did rig it with vote-swaps.

A few points of conversation...

Communism cannot exist without the individual, but the individual Can exist without communism. Therfore the individual is key. When he gets lost
in the ideals, so do the ideals.

Everyone is equal....; some are just MORE equal than others. Why have leaders of communist nations never lived as low as its people. Are its leaders
more equal???? Are atheletes more equal also, they seem to enjoy life with privilage.

What is wrong with greed? If If do not cheat anyone in my work, give him a fair price, work hard, but work really hard because i am greedy...
what is wrong or immoral with that?

A small antidote here on the practicality of communism.

When the pilgrims reached the "new land" in america the first thing they did was to set up a communal system simular to what was in England.
After several winters the entire population nearly starved to death. After discusion they allowed men to have property. Once property was
asigned to families the population started to grow and prospur. When man was set free poltically he was set free productivey.

I have spoken to many a young men who have endeared communism as a "wonderful concept" but never implimented properly. they say that men
have corrupted the ideals. Isnt that the same claim leftists make about capitalsim?

In closing, communism, no matter how noble the principle has NEVER rpoved itself in the realm of "REALITY". And reality is all that men care about. the man
tending his small farm or rice patch doesnt care a hoot about ideals. He only wants to be free enough to feed his family. That my friends leeds to



CAPITALISM!



One day atlas will shrug!!

1) there never have been any communist countries. The very idea is an oxymoron. Neither would there be leaders, as to have a leader one needs a government.

2) Greed is where you take more than you can sensibly use, at the expense of others. Depriving others of the benefits of society for your own benefit when you do not need the resources you consume is greed. Now i don't hold to any moral high-ground against greed, but greed on the part of the capitalist will lead to resentment on the part of the worker, which will eventually end up in a communist revolution. Whether that means you ending up against a wall with a blindfold is a matter of debate amongst revolutionaries, but it wouldn't be fun whatever happened.

On the other hand one can't blame you for being greedy, as you live in a capitalist system, which requires greed as a way of getting to the top, it's the system which is currently at fault.

Communism will not work in a primitive and closed society such as that of the first "pilgrims" who arrived in america. It was never meant to. Communism is intended to be established in developed and "first-world" rich, industrial countries. That's why it failed in russia, china, early USA, and all attempts to set up a communist society so far, amongst other reasons.

And communism isn't a glorious dream for idealists. That's utopianism. True communists are generally cynical jerks who know that most humans are bastards. Hell, we're relying on that fact to bring the revolution! It's not about a hippy-happy "brotherhood of man", where we all hold hands and smoke pot together (although that would be fun), it's simply an economic model which we believe is inevitable, due to the fact that people are envious, greedy, and incapable of being happy knowing that some other guy has more money than them because they were born to different parents.

In closing (and to counter-analogize), nobody has ever claimed that communism has worked, or that a communist state has ever existed (not even the Soviets claimed to have achieved a communist society, nor do the cubans.) but then nuclear fusion has never been shown to work as a power source, and despite unrelated nuclear disasters we still continue to work towards it and hope for it to solve all our energy problems.

Your ignorance of communism is betrayed in your last sentence, mentioning freedom. Communism is the ultimate expression of proletarian freedom, there is literally nobody to opress them. No government to pressure them into serving in illegal wars, no coporations to coerce them into working for minimum wage, no police preventing them from taking what they need, and no centrally-owned mass media to tell them that if they don't follow the line and support their system, they will suddenly be enslaved by guys with funny accents and ominous-sounding titles.

Communism!

One day atlas WILL shrug, your world will collapse, and we won't need to force some poor titan to carry our corrupt system on his shoulders for eternity, because my world will support it's own damn self.



--Edit: Yay for being moved to serious discussions!--

Rather than the form of Communism proposed by Karl Marx, I prefer Plato's dialogue in the Republic, or Rousseau's politics in The Origin of Inequality, Social Contract, and Political Economy.

Marxism is just a little specific when it comes down to it. Marx was against private property. He however was not against property. I agree with Marx here, as does Rousseau. Rousseau believed that it was the origin of private property that replaced the altruistic compassion of man with the violent greed and lust for money and power. This is where Plato comes in. Rousseau admits altruism was killed with private property. Plato rather than having a self-governed community devoid of private property believes in a socialist republic guided by the wise philosophy king.

Plato's society would have all acting in the just way in the spirity of dikaiasune. The just way is the way of the function. Those who write write, those who do calculate calculate, those that make art make art, any other way would be an unjust use of their skills.

Marx, Plato, and Rousseau have one thing in common. That's the way that has people express themselves in the most liberal of ways. Marx believed Communism would free the human spirit and release the oppressed artistic expression, Plato may have despised art, but only as a an intellectual expression. He believed art was deceptive, but that still didn't prevent him from enjoying art himself. In Plato's society, art can't teach philosophy or ethics, for the message is lost in translation, but art is still something within society.

Rousseau was always in favor of liberal expression.

I think communist isn't bad at all, after all that happen in this earth lately. Imigrant overwhelming in some country, that create some social problems. arogance and ignorance did well by some country which called theirself democracy. at least communist (if it done with good) create some equallity amongst countries. we won't have any imigrant problem, not even what they called "terrorist".

One more point from me:

Some communist ideologist (dunno whether it was Rosa Luxemburg, or Marx himself, or who else; please enlighten me if you do) said that communism is not possible before our society has undergone fundamental changes.
Now I ask, assuming those changes have occurred, why would we still need communism? After all, wasn't it developed for this very purpose - to change society?

Therefore, I consider communism obsolete, because a society that is ready for it doesn't need it anymore, and a society that needs it isn't able to implement it.

For a simplified, more poignant version, take this phrase from a friend of mine, who used to be a Communist as a teenager:
"Communism won't work because people are assholes."
Now, I just added: "And when they are assholes no more, communism is useless."

I could say more about communism, but I'll save that for later.

Written by [user id=4184] on 11.09.2006 at 22:10

Therefore, I consider communism obsolete, because a society that is ready for it doesn't need it anymore, and a society that needs it isn't able to implement it.

A society that is ready for it, would automatically embrace the concept of communism, since it would reflect its mentality and ideology (be its manifestation).

Written by [user id=1868] on 11.09.2006 at 22:19

A society that is ready for it, would automatically embrace the concept of communism, since it would reflect its mentality and ideology (be its manifestation).

Interesting thought, but do you, or anyone else for that matter, truly believe this'll ever happen?

Moreover, if this is true, the concept of a proletarian revolution seems to be pretty useless to me, because in the case society embraces communism by itself, you won't need it, right?

Written by [user id=4184] on 11.09.2006 at 22:26

Interesting thought, but do you, or anyone else for that matter, truly believe this'll ever happen?

Nope. But I don't disbelieve it either.

Written by [user id=4184] on 11.09.2006 at 22:26

Moreover, if this is true, the concept of a proletarian revolution seems to be pretty useless to me, because in the case society embraces communism by itself, you won't need it, right?

If mentality of society will be changing faster than the actual world order, then due to the tension, revolution might be inevitable.

Written by [user id=1868] on 11.09.2006 at 22:43

If mentality of society will be changing faster than the actual world order, then due to the tension, revolution might be inevitable.

But with tensions having risen that far, would this society actually be ready for communism?

Yes. It would show that people realise they are caged by the few with power. That it doesn't have to be that way. That it isn't how the human society should be like.

Such revolution would be pushed by the need of freedom, equality and other important changes.
However, if such revolution would come up too quickly, we'd have another case of anarchy followed by rebuilding of government.

Communism is as communism does. you cannot judge communism by the heights of its asperations but by the depths of its failures!

The principles of egalitarianism fail to recognize that not everyone is equal. The human spirit has a need advance, and it cannot when it is burdened

by philosophies that restrain freedom and growth. That growth being emotional, monitary or educational.

Isnt this the ideology that is responsible for about 50 million deaths in the 20th century? Where do I sign up :?

Written by Anthem on 12.09.2006 at 06:50

The principles of egalitarianism fail to recognize that not everyone is equal. The human spirit has a need advance, and it cannot when it is burdened

I don't see how such need can be restrained by equality.

Also, you still ignore things Frosty repeated multiple times.

Written by Anthem on 12.09.2006 at 06:50

Communism is as communism does. you cannot judge communism by the heights of its asperations but by the depths of its failures!

The principles of egalitarianism fail to recognize that not everyone is equal. The human spirit has a need advance, and it cannot when it is burdened

by philosophies that restrain freedom and growth. That growth being emotional, monitary or educational.

Isnt this the ideology that is responsible for about 50 million deaths in the 20th century? Where do I sign up :?

Communism is the system where people express freely. What if I were to show someone a painting of laborers working on an oil derek, and I asked just what does this mean in reference to society?

There would be two likely responses, the first would be. These oil workers are in terrible condition, I never want to be like an oil worker or associate with an oil worker, I want to be a rich corporate executive and associate with other rich people.

The second response could be, people who work work on oil dereks, if I want do work, maybe I should do that.

The painting in a capitalist society depicting soceity shows them either how to live or how not to live. At any rate, it's some form of propoganda that destroys the goal of art and expression.

In communism a paiting like this couldn't exist, not that there wouldn't be any laborers working on energy production, but that art would be an artistic expression, not propoganda regarding elements of society.

People died under communism? Let me ask you if the Soviet, Chineese, and IndoChineese government were Communist governments, or dictatorships decieving their people with benefits in the disguise of communism?

Written by [user id=3152] on 28.08.2006 at 01:36

Over the course of the last two weeks i have seen a lot of references to communism, unanimously either dismissive of it's possibility or simply against it because of the whole Soviet experiment in the 20th century.

This thread is one for educating the mass of metalstormers just what communism is about, why communists believe it is a viable economic model, and the history of communism, and hopefully there are some commies here apart from me who can contribute to discussion about the finer and undecided points (what form should the revolution take, where/when, etc).

Here's a few starting points that i want to make quite clear:

1) There has never been a communist society existing on a national level. None have ever claimed to be communist. Of the very few that call themselves socialist, hardly any are truly socialist in the actual literal definition of the word. Referring to china, north korea or russia in this thread is pointless, as none of those are connected in any meaningful manner to Communism.

2) Communism is the STATELESS society achieved after an international proletarian revolution, which abolishes the oppressive capitalist system in all it's forms, and to it's deepest roots. I'm talking total and complete wiping of the board and remaking it all. No more money, no more companies, no more countries, no more employment, no more religion (negotiable according to some communists), an entire life change. This comes to be after a lengthy and natural transition period known as socialism, where an organization of workers coordinates the activities the proletariat for it's own benefit.

3) Communism means revolution, and not some wussy social revolution. It cannot be achieved through the political system, the political system must be overthrown and destroyed, as it (like all institutions of our society) exists solely to concentrate power (and therefore money) in the hands of a few. The scale and conduct of the revolution is a matter of debate amongst communists.

4) Anarchism (in it's pure form) is exactly as above, except that anarchists believe that we will be able to, and must, slip straight into communism after the revolution, so i count anarchists as communists. Henceforth then people adhering to the principles stated above will be referred to as marxists.



Question, comment, challenge or even flame, but please oh please at least have read this post before writing "COMMIES FVKK3D UP RUSSKIELAND!!11", or even a coherent and valid post raging against the PRK, PRC or (former)USSR. And any other MS commies lend a hand please!

should we all to be agree with that?? -.-', I mean are that any rules to talk in the thread or smthing?

those are simply some pretty factual points that would lay a base for discussion. By all means challenge them, i'd be more than pleased to debate it with you. Those guidelines are just there to stop people like bluescapone going on about soviet totalitarianism.

Sorry for being away from here for a bit, i thought this thread had died... But the revolution lives on!

Good post, you explain communism well...

Frost Bitten, Sweden is not socialist. they just have a good social security system like Denmark where i live in.

Written by [user id=16496] on 19.09.2006 at 14:35

Good post, you explain communism well...

Frost Bitten, Sweden is not socialist. they just have a good social security system like Denmark where i live in.

Sweden is a nice place, but it's true that Finland is the best example of successful socialism in the world today. This is because of a few qualifications.

1. The society has a high standard of honor. It's not wise, but in many parts of Finland you could leave a wallet hanging around out of your sight, and it's likely not to be touched. Of course this is a bit of stretch, but it's something quite a few Suomealaiset believe is true.

2. The country has a smaller population and surface area. Finland is the best example of a modern country minimizing it's needs. People can be much more easily provided for in Finland than say France. This isn't realistic for many countries, but if a country has fewer needs, it's easier to meet those needs.

3. The education is phoenomenal. One of the key components to successful socialism/communism is education. Finland does a great job of this from primary education to university eduction.