Page 2 of 2 [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

05 Dec 2006, 10:46 pm

Pyth wrote:
... *SLAP*

No I'm serious.

Communism does NOT result in the end of social liberty. It results in a centrally controlled economy.

What I'm talking about is a democracy where you aren't stuck in capitalism.

And some scholars would argue that a centrally controlled economy *IS* the end of liberty ultimately arguing that control over the economy cannot end in freedom sense such control will be a control over the individual himself and his economic choices, which are an essential part to liberty.



TheMachine1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,011
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.

06 Dec 2006, 8:07 am

DerekD_Goldfish wrote:
Firstly anarchy and communism are quite different you should have called the post greeting from an anarchist.

I like to listin to Crass as mush as the next man but no rational person can think that anarchy would work on anything other than a minor localised scale


Well in theory the communist state would wither away to a ideal anarchist state. Though in reality those in power want to maintain power. Second the concept of socialism is great on paper but in the real world it breaks down. Basically if you want to see real anarchy in action move to Africa.

You do see leftwing extremest waving both black flags of Anarchism and red flags of
communism at protest.



Haraldur
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 4 Dec 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 15

06 Dec 2006, 12:03 pm

One of my obsessions is correcting other people. I am such a pedant.

Quote:
Democracy should allow people to go communist? Communism almost always results in the end of liberties and liberty is something that should be unabolishable. What you're talking about it is pure democracy where anything and everything goes without the rule of law and liberty being held sacred like it is in the US.


USSR, DPRK, PRC etc. were not Communist in any way, and in my opinion not even Socialist.

A Communist system is defined as a stateless, classless society where distribution is based on "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (famous Marx quote), with organisation by communes (hence communism) and workers' councils, and with no concept of private property (which is distinct from personal property and possession). Hence a Communist system is a type of Anarchist system (and a Technocratic, or Technocratic Communist system, is a type of Communism).

A Socialist system is defined as being any system where the means of production and distribution are controlled by the workers. I interpret that as being directly from the workers, without heirarchies or bureaucracies and representatives. Hence I do not view Leninists as Socialist.

Quote:
Oh and hi everyone, im Nick and I to am cursed with Asperger's Syndrome.


Hi. But, one thing. AS is a curse? How so? Besides I am of the point of view that I do not have AS: I am an Aspergian.

Quote:
Greetings from a Nazi.

LOL
just kidding


:P :)

Quote:
It results in a centrally controlled economy.


That, in my terminology, would be State Capitalism, a form of Capitalism where those in charge are not private investors and CEOs, but the State (which usually owns all shares and is CEO). It is not in any way fundamentally different from Western Capitalism. If it was, then the so-called 'mixed' economies of Scandinavia would be non-existant.

The DDR, for example, was State Capitalist (albeit very oppressive. It is for that reason that I like to call Stalinists, Maoists and such Red Fascists), with the workers themselves having as little control of their destiny as in any other country.

Quote:
individual himself and his economic choices, which are an essential part to liberty.


I have no liberty. The only choices I can make are trivial.

Quote:
communist state


Oxymoron.

Quote:
anarchist state


An even more obvious oxymoron.

Quote:
Second the concept of socialism is great on paper but in the real world it breaks down.


Breaks down does it? There have been very few examples of Socialism. The Paris Commune of 1871, parts of Mexico in 1910, large areas of the Ukraine in 1917-21, large areas of Spain in 1936, Budapest in 1956, before Kruschev sent in the tanks, parts of France, briefly, in 1968, the Zapatista areas of Chiapas in Southern Mexico, 1994 to present, and, most recently, the Oaxaca Commune in Southern Mexico. The Paris Commune made the mistake of not destroying Versailles, and not seizing money from the main bank, allowing the state to reorganise itself and crush Paris from the outside. In Mexico, 1910, there was a Civil War, and Mexico as we know it is the result. The Anarchists in Ukraine were first having to fight against the Germans and Austrians, then the Whites, and then lastly the Leninists, who crushed them (and the Kronstadt Rebellion some time after). The Spanish Anarchists were crushed by Stalinists on one side and more obvious Fascists on the other. The Hungarian uprising was crushed by Soviet tanks. The uprising in France, 1968, was ended by the 'Communist' Party and its lackey union, the French CGT (there is a different CGT, in Spain, that is unrelated) telling the workers to go back to their workplaces, as they unfortunately had a lot of influence at the time, and were very much influenced by the leadership of the USSR. The Zapatista areas still exist, having lasted 12 years, though nothing much is happening, and it is a very primitive form of Socialism (they are mostly peasants). The Oaxaca Commune still exists, and has lasted almost a year now, but it is weakening, as a result of multiple assaults by police, paramilitaries and the army, and the influence of reformist unions.

You should be able to see from the above list that, with the exceptions of Oaxaca and the Zapatista, all the above were destroyed by outside forces, whether it be blatant military defeat or reformist influence. Oaxaca is currently weakening due to both.

Quote:
Basically if you want to see real anarchy in action move to Africa.


If you want to see a mixture of globalisation, chaos, war, Imperialism, tribalism, fundamentalism and suffering yes, but there is not much Anarchy to speak of, not at all.

Quote:
You do see leftwing extremest waving both black flags of Anarchism and red flags of
communism at protest.


Indeed. That is because Communism, in its true form, is a type of Anarchism, and the vast majority of Anarchists are Communists (the main split is between Syndicalist and non-Syndicalist Anarchist Communists. I still have yet to make up my mind on this point, but the difference is only on organisational focus).



TheMachine1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,011
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.

06 Dec 2006, 12:47 pm

Haraldur wrote:
Quote:
Second the concept of socialism is great on paper but in the real world it breaks down.


Breaks down does it? There have been very few examples of Socialism.


Well I mean practical things like how many toothbrushes to make, types, colors, supply chain management.



Haraldur
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 4 Dec 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 15

06 Dec 2006, 1:03 pm

Quote:
Well I mean practical things like how many toothbrushes to make, types, colors, supply chain management.


How many toothbrushes? It is still possible to estimate demand and produce that many toothbrushes. It is still possible to estimate demand for red toothbrushes, if it is significantly different to overall toothbrush demand. Even if it were not significantly different, we need not make them all one colour. As for types, same as above (though most types of toothbrushes are marketing gimmicks, so the number of types would probably be reduced).

For organisation of supply, you just have to estimate demand for a local area, much as is done now, and then move the goods to a distribution centre in that area. It is not terribly difficult. In fact it is easier, as you do not have to worry about profit, only about providing as much as is needed.



TheMachine1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,011
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.

06 Dec 2006, 1:45 pm

Haraldur wrote:
Quote:
Well I mean practical things like how many toothbrushes to make, types, colors, supply chain management.


How many toothbrushes? It is still possible to estimate demand and produce that many toothbrushes. It is still possible to estimate demand for red toothbrushes, if it is significantly different to overall toothbrush demand. Even if it were not significantly different, we need not make them all one colour. As for types, same as above (though most types of toothbrushes are marketing gimmicks, so the number of types would probably be reduced).

For organisation of supply, you just have to estimate demand for a local area, much as is done now, and then move the goods to a distribution centre in that area. It is not terribly difficult. In fact it is easier, as you do not have to worry about profit, only about providing as much as is needed.


Thats good you will accept modern method(not some back to nature hippie) but will
a socialist system beable to invent new ideas that might be better in the future? Seems
for better or worst it might slow down.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

06 Dec 2006, 5:26 pm

Haraldur wrote:
How many toothbrushes? It is still possible to estimate demand and produce that many toothbrushes. It is still possible to estimate demand for red toothbrushes, if it is significantly different to overall toothbrush demand. Even if it were not significantly different, we need not make them all one colour. As for types, same as above (though most types of toothbrushes are marketing gimmicks, so the number of types would probably be reduced).

For organisation of supply, you just have to estimate demand for a local area, much as is done now, and then move the goods to a distribution centre in that area. It is not terribly difficult. In fact it is easier, as you do not have to worry about profit, only about providing as much as is needed.

It is possible but the real question is why individuals should do so and why not create them all the same color? Really, what must be recognized is what incentive is there to act in such a manner when it does not derive any benefit for a majority of individuals. If we just created red toothbrushes production would be a lot more efficient, the only question is whether or not that is desirable. As well, there are questions on the quality vs the cheapness. If we make one size fits all we would be able to create more toothbrushes for less resources but is that good?

As well, you ignore the role of profit. Profit is a necessity to recognize human desire and to give incentive to provide according to wants/needs. If our goal is unprofitable then essentially it shows that productive individuals within our economy desire that the resources used be put towards a different goal.



tinky
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,015
Location: en la luna bailando con las vacas

06 Dec 2006, 5:32 pm

*runs in* hi! *runs out*


_________________
tinky is currently trying to overcome anatidaephobia. They're out there and they will find you...

tinky's WP Mod email account: [email protected]

you may tire of the world but the world will never tire of you


RobertN
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 934
Location: Cambridge, UK

07 Dec 2006, 9:36 pm

Greetings, comrade!! I am certainly not a communist, but I am a socialist and share many of your views on the failing capitalist system. However, I am pro-State as I believe it is impossible to distribute resources in a non-capitalist country without the use of a central body such as a state.



BazzaMcKenzie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,495
Location: the Antipodes

07 Dec 2006, 11:40 pm

RobertN wrote:
... I am pro-State as I believe it is impossible to distribute resources in a non-capitalist country ....

lol - you mean steal from the rich and give to the poor. A Robin Hood State :lol:

Welcome to WP. :D


_________________
I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.
Strewth!


shadowstate
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 17

09 Dec 2006, 2:36 am

well i am a Democratic socialist and heres a warning the new remige will take on charctics of oppressive of the privous remige



other
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 9

09 Dec 2006, 1:12 pm

Haraldur wrote:
Did that catch your attention?

Greetings. My name is Haraldur. I am Icelandic on my father's side and English on my mothers. I am a first year Physics student at Imperial College London (soon to leave the University of London to become Imperial University). s**t name, I know, but there are more important considerations.

I am a member of the Anarchist Federation in the UK. I am also soon becoming a member of Anti-Fascist Action in the UK.

Political description: Anarchist Comm <polite snip>


I take it politics is your AS obsession?

Hello!