Are you a communist?

Yes
78% (62 votes)
No
18% (14 votes)
Don't Know
5% (4 votes)
Total votes: 80

Posted By

Lazy Riser
Mar 30 2006 15:07

Tags

Share

Attached files

Comments

Skraeling
May 8 2006 04:23
Lazy Riser wrote:
It’s common sense to presume someone’s private property will have to confiscated at some point, so I’m suspicious that you’ve dodged the philosophical enquiry by claiming that you’ve been “slagged off” and diverting the discussion into an examination of democracy.

that's coz, as you suggest, it was the secret police part i was objecting to. i dont think there should be any police, secret or otherwise. Plus i find the notion of communist secret police coming to take away your toothbrush a little bit absurd. i mean, i don't know of any communist who would be mean enuf to expropriate your own toothbrush! i don't have any problem with people "owning" their personal possessions such as toothbrushes. i do have a prob with people owning stuff that gives them power over others tho.

you're touching on a very grey area, that's for sure. you are quite right to suggest someone's private property will need to be confiscated at some point. this is actually quite a big question, i am not sure how to answer it. what do others think?

i am not really sure about where to draw the line. i can imagine a lot of conflict and the like over issues like this. well, that's fine, coz communism to me is a neverending process, not some final utopia where everything is all worked out and everybody are happy, shiny people all the time (yukky). i dont think there is some universal formula that can be applied. it depends. in some communities, i imagine they will allow quite a bit of private property, and others will not. it really is a question that oughta be decided on the spot according to the circumstances. personally, i have no problem with the solution of some Spanish anarchists to those who didn't want to join the collective, that is, let em own and till their very small plot of land, so long as they don't hire others to work for em. But what if they keep encroaching on the commons? do we use the militia to pen them in? do they have a right to resist?

Lazy Riser wrote:
Skraeling wrote:
The problem is that because natural resources (including human aptitude) are not spread evenly, some will be more efficient than others, and accumulate profit faster than others, even if everybody starts off just with owning a wee bit of property and their very own stall. Some stalls will get bigger than others, and buy the others out, and then buy their land, and then force them to work for them, and then you're back to square one all again.

Now I’m going to tread very carefully here, because this simple paragraph lies at the philosophical root of Marxist communism and it’s analysis of “capitalism” as a degenerate social relation. I’m not in the business of discrediting communism, a truly useless activity if every there was one, but the idea that autonomous society would allow misery and destitution without communism’s guiding ideology to inhibit selfish competition, truly underestimates the natural equalitarian and progressive tendencies of the working class.

Um, well i suppose a co-operative and equalitarian society that allows various degrees of property and the market (please step in if i am misunderstanding yr viewpoint here) is no doubt possible. I for one would love to see that work. I would prove my dogma wrong. But i'm still a little sceptical, mainly for the reasons i've argued above.

what do you mean by "the natural equalitarian and progressive tendencies of the working class"? i dont know exactly what equalitarian means. does it mean egalitarian? and what do you think is progressive? i think working class people are not naturally progressive nor naturally elitist. they are a bit of both in my experience. working class people can be fair bastards towards each other as well as practising mutual aid, equality and the like. tho some of us are genuinely equalitarian, for sure. the point is: some of us aren't.

to me, i think the type of society you are proposing could work, but only if there was a widespread, mainstream culture of mutual aid, co-operation, and the like (i think this is also a prerequisite for communism and anarchism, of course). I don't think this culture is natural. It would be lovely if it was. Sure, such a tendency does exist among working class people today. But i think it's buried under the dominant capitalist ideology. i think the tendency to mutual aid and the like needs to grow and flourish, and i don't believe its something that will naturally become dominant by itself, tho it would be great if it did.

Mike Harman
May 8 2006 08:36
Skraeling wrote:

you're touching on a very grey area, that's for sure. you are quite right to suggest someone's private property will need to be confiscated at some point. this is actually quite a big question, i am not sure how to answer it. what do others think?

Self defence guv.

Gans Khusaenov
May 8 2006 13:43

I not the communist. Not especially I support their ideology though among my friends it is a lot of communists. And quarrels on this theme at us does not happen

Lazy Riser
May 8 2006 18:19

Hi

Gans Khusaenov wrote:
I not the communist. Not especially I support their ideology though among my friends it is a lot of communists. And quarrels on this theme at us does not happen

Is that because you love each other? Or is it because you are in some way ideologically compatible, even though you are not a communist?

Your English is excellent.

Love

LR

sam sanchez
May 9 2006 16:39

The equalitarian tendencies of the working class? Their human just like the ruling class, who must therefore have the same tendencies, according to you. I'm no saying that Marxist or communist ideology is a must, or that human beings tend towards inequality, but that its perfectly obvious from the great variety of societies that have existed, equalitarian and (whatever the opposite is) that human beings have the potential for either type of society. And people's ideas inform their action. If arguing for non-hierarchical solidarity and for a society based on equality and liberty is ideology, then some degree of ideology is neccessary, although it should not be a sacred cow, but should always be criticised (like here smile ).

In any case, in the same culture, why assume that the working class have any more of an equalitarian tendency than the bosses?

Lazy Riser
May 9 2006 18:08

Hi

sam_frances wrote:
The equalitarian tendencies of the working class? Their human just like the ruling class

The revolution will unlock our super human potential. The bourgeoisie we spare will be assimilated.

sam_frances wrote:
but that its perfectly obvious from the great variety of societies that have existed, equalitarian and (whatever the opposite is) that human beings have the potential for either type of society.

What we have is the unique equalitarian, creative, capability of the working class farmed by an elite throughout history using authoritarian conditioning.

sam_frances wrote:
In any case, in the same culture, why assume that the working class have any more of an equalitarian tendency than the bosses?

Because equality is in the working class’s interests, contrary to those of the “managerial class”.

Love

LR

Norm
May 10 2006 00:48

Communism is a non-hierarchical system in which the means of production are anarchically managed by the workers, society democratically organised by the public (of workers), and the freedoms of the individual and thus society protected through such methods of social organisation.

The means of production are those items capable of public use which rather than purely holding subjective value to the public themselves, are capable of being used by workers to generate items of greater subjective value to society than those materials or items which were put in.

Fertile land, large factories and intellectual property or patents would fit under this umbrella, because ownership of these items is used by their "owners" to forcefully claim profit from items grown/manufactured by the workers who are employed there/utilise the design.

bastarx
May 10 2006 03:12
Norm wrote:
Communism is a non-hierarchical system in which the means of production are anarchically managed by the workers, society democratically organised by the public (of workers), and the freedoms of the individual and thus society protected through such methods of social organisation.

Nope, communism means the abolition of class. Thus it is a mistake (and not just a semantic one methinks) to talk of workers ATR. People will obviously still make stuff (well at least until it can all be done by robots) but there's no reason that activities as varied as making clothes, growing food, building houses, caring for children will all remain work. What makes them work now is that they are done for a wage.

Pete

Norm
May 10 2006 03:24
Peter wrote:
Norm wrote:
Communism is a non-hierarchical system in which the means of production are anarchically managed by the workers, society democratically organised by the public (of workers), and the freedoms of the individual and thus society protected through such methods of social organisation.

Nope, communism means the abolition of class. Thus it is a mistake (and not just a semantic one methinks) to talk of workers ATR. People will obviously still make stuff (well at least until it can all be done by robots) but there's no reason that activities as varied as making clothes, growing food, building houses, caring for children will all remain work. What makes them work now is that they are done for a wage.

Pete

# exert oneself by doing mental or physical work for a purpose or out of necessity;

# be employed;

# employment: the occupation for which you are paid;

# exploit: use or manipulate to one's advantage;

# workplace: a place where work is done;

Some definitions I got back from google, the more relevant ones anyway.

I agree that the last four will no longer exist due to the abolition of class, but people will always create items of more subjective value to them or to others from items of less subjective value.

Because everyone is creating beyond themselves, rather than a few being "priviledged" enough to command a fleet of workers to assemble products for their profit, everyone becomes a worker. And rather than workers assembling for the profit of others, they create value for themselves.

I don't agree that "worker" is required to have a negative tone associated with it in all situations, it's only required to have such a tone when speaking about contemporary society because of the exploitation workers currently face, and the fact that not everyone is a worker, to their detriment as much as it is to their benefit.

jason
Jul 22 2006 15:28

I voted yes. I see anarchism and socialism as necesary for each other - i.e. you can't have an egalitarian polity without egalitarian production and visa versa. Communism is just the advanced form of society when these distinctions b/t polity and production are no longer relavant. I want to claim the terms 'socialism' and 'communism' back from statists.

Jas

Lazy Riser
Jul 22 2006 15:32

Hi

Quote:
I want to claim the terms 'socialism' and 'communism' back from statists

Which statists do you mean? I can’t see them putting up much of a fight, in fact I expect you’ll be more than welcome.

Love

LR

Lazlo_Woodbine
Jul 22 2006 15:33
Lazy Riser wrote:
Which statists do you mean?

The main ones who use the term 'Communism' these days are the victors of the Cold War, to describe what they have defeated.

Lazy Riser
Jul 22 2006 19:24

Hi

Quote:
The main ones who use the term 'Communism' these days are the victors of the Cold War, to describe what they have defeated.

I'm not so sure. Nowadays they seem to only say "communism" when they give speeches in ex-communist countries. I think most use of the word "communism" emanates from the libertarian political ghetto.

Quote:
I want to claim the terms 'socialism' and 'communism' back from statists

It's been more-or-less reclaimed already. People still think it's rubbish. I wonder why. Maybe they’re right.

Love

LR