Libertarian Communism

[Cuchulain]

Anyone else here interested in Libertarian Communism?

I feel that a form of true communism (i.e. the Spanish collectives in 1936) would be the best possible way for society to be organized. True, some of the old theorem is updated, but in a way it's improved over time.

I tend to think Libertarian Communism could be implemented with a focus on Technocracy.

Take a look at this video on the Spanish Anarchists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MugPyyjU4nc

In terms of social development, the spanish anarchists were far ahead of us even now.

[gary_wagner]

Isn't that an oxymoron? Maybe libertarian communism is some form of theoretical utopia. In realty, all communism attempts in our lifetimes have required ridid authoritarism because given a choice, the majority of people will not choose communism - they have to be forced into it kicking and screaming with concentration camps and reeducation centers for those who don't embrace the party line. In order for everyone to own everything and be equal in a communist society, government has to take everything away from everyone and give it out in equal measures. A libertarian society is not going to allow a communist regime to dictate each and every iota of a person's life.

Communism is one of those things that in theory should make everyone happy and the world a wonderful place to live but in realty is something that almost everyone hates with a passion and will not choose it if given a choice. It's hard for some people to accept that we don't live in a theoretical world. We live in a real one and communism has been a complete and absolutel failure each and every time it has been attempted.

[starrwriter]

Originally Posted by gary_wagner

...Communism is one of those things that in theory should make everyone happy and the world a wonderful place to live but in realty is something that almost everyone hates with a passion and will not choose it if given a choice. It's hard for some people to accept that we don't live in a theoretical world. We live in a real one and communism has been a complete and absolutel failure each and every time it has been attempted.

The fact that utopian societies which are invariably communist/socialist/collectivist have been attempted again and again (even today) shows that some people will never be satisified with the dog-eat-dog values of capitalist systems. As Karl Marx observed, a man in a capitalist society is free to starve if he can't find a job.

[Cuchulain]

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Not really. Libertarian Communists were known as libertarians much longer then the so called "American Libertarians" were capitalist.

Maybe libertarian communism is some form of theoretical utopia.

No libertarian communist would ever call it utopian though. That would imply a perfect society, founded on unreasonable standards.

In realty, all communism attempts in our lifetimes have required ridid authoritarism because given a choice, the majority of people will not choose communism - they have to be forced into it kicking and screaming with concentration camps and reeducation centers for those who don't embrace the party line.

This is entirely incorrect and ill informed.

No "Communist" government has ever existed because communism is not a government. Those governments that you describe as authoritarian are "Socialist". There is no "party" in libertarian communism, nor is there a vanguard. Those things are purely leninist invention.

I also think most people would prefer communism to capitalism. If popular support for socialism has shown us anything, its that people are unhappy about current conditions.

In order for everyone to own everything and be equal in a communist society, government has to take everything away from everyone and give it out in equal measures. A libertarian society is not going to allow a communist regime to dictate each and every iota of a person's life.

I agree. I think it would be helpful if you looked at the early days of the russian revolutions. The thing about that revolution was that there was a libertarian structure before Lenin crushed it. It seems as though workers organizing into working councils are an almost natural thing.

Communism is one of those things that in theory should make everyone happy and the world a wonderful place to live but in realty is something that almost everyone hates with a passion and will not choose it if given a choice. It's hard for some people to accept that we don't live in a theoretical world. We live in a real one and communism has been a complete and absolutel failure each and every time it has been attempted

As I was attempting to illustrate in my first post, libertarian communism is not all theoretical. I suggest you watch some of the things that I linked.

I think a great validation of libertarian communism in todays world is P2P systems. Property can only exist so long as people respect the fact that it exists, and in todays world it's nearly impossible to enforce property laws because all people using P2P networks are sharing, not stealing.

[JackStraw]

Property is theft.

Proudhon

[Cuchulain]

Originally Posted by JackStraw

Property is theft.

Proudhon

Correct. Proudhon was a bit self absorbed, but he was still a brilliant man.

[RayneAven]

We would encounter today the same problem Marx encountered when he wrote the Communist Manifesto. Sure, in theory, it would work. We would live happy lives as all equals, but the transformation to get there would probably be the hardest challenge in the world in all of time. The proletariat would do anything to be as good as the bourgeoisie and/or the aristocracy, but the aristocracy and bourgeoisie would not so easily give up their luxuries.

This is the reason why the Communist Manifesto ends with "Workers of the world, unite!" Marx, however, completely missed nationalism. The truth is, the god warrior of the bible belt would most likely not pair up with the Jew from New York City, let alone people from other countries. I'd like to see anyone persuade each and every individual attending an U.N. meeting to freely submit their will to a single plan.

Furthermore, I like Capitalist beliefs. (For the most part) in a capitalistic society, the amount of success an individual has is directly proportional to the amount of effort that individual puts in. The way I see it, everyone gets what they deserve. That, of course, is an idealistic view of a capitalistic society, and it definitely doesn't happen like that in the U.S.A. today.

[Cuchulain]

We would encounter today the same problem Marx encountered when he wrote the Communist Manifesto. Sure, in theory, it would work. We would live happy lives as all equals, but the transformation to get there would probably be the hardest challenge in the world in all of time. The proletariat would do anything to be as good as the bourgeoisie and/or the aristocracy, but the aristocracy and bourgeoisie would not so easily give up their luxuries.

And your right. In every case, there have had to been wars etc. Either that, or the ruling classes have to become leaders of the proles, like Lenin and Stalin did for the communists, which is why they of course failed.

But thats why libertarian communism works where marxist-leninst teachings fails. Leninism relies upon the notion that people need authority in order to make changes. Libertarian communism uses a more natural choice. Violence though is inevitable.

This is the reason why the Communist Manifesto ends with "Workers of the world, unite!" Marx, however, completely missed nationalism. The truth is, the god warrior of the bible belt would most likely not pair up with the Jew from New York City, let alone people from other countries. I'd like to see anyone persuade each and every individual attending an U.N. meeting to freely submit their will to a single plan.

Marx didn't miss nationalism. In fact, he saw it as a potential threat. That's why he was saying that workers are more divided by class then by country.

There are times when nationalism prevails over other political forms. Continued agitation and organization is the means with which to overcome that.

in a capitalistic society, the amount of success an individual has is directly proportional to the amount of effort that individual puts in.

I disagree with this. In fact, it seems like no matter how smart someone is, if they are born to a lower class of citizens, they tend to fall behind. Why do you think Black poverty levels in the united states are so high as compared to whites? Or latin american countries to United States? The simple answer is that they are being exploited to such an extent that they cannot rise.

And who gets blamed? The blacks and mestizos themselves. All the blacks must somehow be stupid or deformed as compared to the white rich capitalist man.
[

That, of course, is an idealistic view of a capitalistic society, and it definitely doesn't happen like that in the U.S.A. today.

As far as I can see, the US has gotten closest, but only to the expense of other countries.

[RayneAven]

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

I disagree with this. In fact, it seems like no matter how smart someone is, if they are born to a lower class of citizens, they tend to fall behind. Why do you think Black poverty levels in the united states are so high as compared to whites? Or latin american countries to United States? The simple answer is that they are being exploited to such an extent that they cannot rise.

I agree with that to a point, mostly because I can't argue with numbers. However, I don't believe that the minorities are being exploited as much as you find them to be. Minorities are generally looked down upon in any given society, and that's usually why the minority poverty levels are so low. Also, a person born into poverty in the United States generally isn't in the right environment to educate themselves properly: either the school system is bad (like most urban environments, which is where the minorities are mostly living) or they're preoccupied with the lack of basic human needs.

[Cuchulain]

Originally Posted by RayneAven

I agree with that to a point, mostly because I can't argue with numbers. However, I don't believe that the minorities are being exploited as much as you find them to be. Minorities are generally looked down upon in any given society, and that's usually why the minority poverty levels are so low. Also, a person born into poverty in the United States generally isn't in the right environment to educate themselves properly: either the school system is bad (like most urban environments, which is where the minorities are mostly living) or they're preoccupied with the lack of basic human needs.

All of which is a direct result of poverty. What else can possibly be blamed but capitalism? The only other explanation is that theres something inherently "wrong" with blacks and spanish people.

[starrwriter]

In cultural anthropology college classes I learned about the doctrine of limited good espoused in peasant societies. It argues (quite logically, I thought) that there is only so much "good" to go around -- wealth, land and other natural resources, the so-called good life. And if a few gain more than others, the many will have less than their fair share. Therefore greed, hoarding, envy, etc. are condemned by peasants.

[RayneAven]

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

All of which is a direct result of poverty. What else can possibly be blamed but capitalism? The only other explanation is that theres something inherently "wrong" with blacks and spanish people.

The actual dichotomy about these two forms of government is the basic battle between the individual and the society. Capitalism rewards the individual who works hard to achieve financial and social success. As a consequence, though, it also rewards the descendents of those who worked hard to achieve that success. Whites have had this success since before the dawn of the country, whereas minorities haven't. There isn't anything wrong with the minorities, whites just had a head start.

I agree that this technically isn't fair, but anyone can make it as long as he has the will. In fact, in my area, the richest family is Chinese. The second richest family is black. The father/husband of that family is on the township committee.

The big problem that minority races face isn't inherent in the system, but is instead inherent in the society. Racism and xenophobia are major factors that contribute to minority poverty. It's not the system's fault; it's the society's.

I like the idea behind communism, but I can't get past the fact that I'm getting the same pay working my ass off that someone else is slacking off. If the economy drops because of him, everyone is punished.

[Cuchulain]

Capitalism rewards the individual who works hard to achieve financial and social success.

The thing about this though is that working people work just as hard, if not harder then those that are rich. I mean how many poor people do you know that take two hour lunch breaks?

and yeah anyone can logically gain wealth by working hard like this, but it requires an extraordinary amount of luck, and most people won't make it.

Meanwhile, those that do somehow get rich do it at the expense of the poor.

I think in today's society, usually what determines who becomes rich and poor is whether or not they did well in school. Our school system is very authoritarian though, and it has this really meager attitude to the creative spirit, and a high value on business and authority. And depending on what school you go in, it will mold a person into whatever shape their area reflects. So the rich area school will mold a person into treating human beings like commoditties, where in a poor area those there will find education meaningless because of the way school is, and thats where the drugs and guns come in. . .

I like the idea behind communism, but I can't get past the fact that I'm getting the same pay working my ass off that someone else is slacking off. If the economy drops because of him, everyone is punished.

As far as communism goes, a major thing you have to take into account is that there is no such thing as currency. Everybody does whatever they want, on the whole, and things are produced naturally. What happens because of this is everyone gets what they want.

In such a state, people would be free to start a capitalist business, but it wouldn't work because there would be no point. Free production and consumption is natural. The only reason why capitalism works is because of private property, which needs to be defended.

Hypothetically, a man is born into this society. He has an apt for shoe making. His father was a shoe maker and his father etc. etc. SO he learns how to make the shoes and naturally starts to make them both for himself, and for anyone who asks for it.

Suppose you need a shoe. You go to this man, and you say, "Hey can I get a shoe?"

The man will smile and say certainly and he'll show you how to make it. But he doesn't have to show you, you can simply take one of the shoes he makes.


In one way or another, people are still working but they are working because of personal fulfillment.

CAuse why do you think people work at all anyways? In todays society, people work to make money so they can buy stuff for themselves and raise themselves up in society. Does this type of work give them drive? Yes it does.

The incentive to work is based around the idea that human beings need something to do with themselves.

[RayneAven]

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

those that do somehow get rich do it at the expense of the poor.

Then good for them. They discovered a way to make themselves successful. They should be rewarded. It's not their fault that the beggar on the side of the street couldn't think of their ideas.

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

I think in today's society, usually what determines who becomes rich and poor is whether or not they did well in school. Our school system is very authoritarian though, and it has this really meager attitude to the creative spirit, and a high value on business and authority. And depending on what school you go in, it will mold a person into whatever shape their area reflects. So the rich area school will mold a person into treating human beings like commoditties, where in a poor area those there will find education meaningless because of the way school is, and thats where the drugs and guns come in. . .

Then that's a social problem, nothing wrong with the system. I am in no way trying to argue that the United States is a perfect place to live.

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

What happens because of this is everyone gets what they want.

Do you believe that everyone deserves to get what they want?

[Cuchulain]

[quote]Then good for them. They discovered a way to make themselves successful. They should be rewarded. It's not their fault that the beggar on the side of the street couldn't think of their ideas.[/QUOTe

Yeah its just a god damn shame that the 8 year old child in Southeast Asia didn't think to use the capital he inherited from his parents to create a multinational business which does nothing to benefit society.

Then that's a social problem, nothing wrong with the system. I am in no way trying to argue that the United States is a perfect place to live.

Your avoiding the issue. Social problems are a problem with the system. These things don't just come out of nowhere.

Do you believe that everyone deserves to get what they want?

I think thats an irrelevant question, because how are we supposed to determine this? Because I know many people in this world who have been unfortunate with their life that probably deserved more, and then I knew some people who got more and deserved less. So I think I could ask you a similar question. Do you believe that capitalism should be made to decide who gets what? Cause I don't.

[RayneAven]

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

Yeah its just a god damn shame that the 8 year old child in Southeast Asia didn't think to use the capital he inherited from his parents to create a multinational business which does nothing to benefit society.

He's 8. I don't think it's possible. Either way, you're right. It doesn't benefit the society. But, it doesn't hurt it either. Coca-Cola has never done anything to me other than exchange a beverage for my money. It didn't make me a loser, it didn't make me more popular. The only thing it ever did to society was raise the status of the people who made it. And the people who made it should be rewarded for their work.

When that 8-year-old grows up, he very well could make a multinational company, and then it would be good for him. Or, he could just be a regular guy. Or, it's more than likely that he wouldn't be educated enough to make one, and he'd struggle knowing very little.

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

Your avoiding the issue. Social problems are a problem with the system. These things don't just come out of nowhere.

They do come out of nowhere; they don't come from the system. It usually comes from race or other origin. If an Asian guy went into Harlem, people would probably stare at him. If a white guy went into Harlem, he'd probably be shot. It's the same thing across the Mason-Dixxon line. I moved to Texas when I was younger -- apparently, people from Texas are rather biased against Jews from New York. You can guess how my childhood was down there.

Heck, before capitalism was invented people killed other people simply because their religion was different. These social problems have absolutely nothing to do with the system. It has to do with the fact that people can't deal with the fact that other people are different.

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

Do you believe that capitalism should be made to decide who gets what?

The basic belief of capitalism is that people can get what they want as long as they put in effort. In other words, people get what they deserve. So, yes, I do believe that capitalism should be made to decide who gets what.

Now, I know people don't always get what they deserve. There are times I know I sure haven't. That's a social problem, though. Example: when I was in elementary and middle school, I couldn't curse without getting a detention. I don't deserve to get a detention because I didn't offend anyone, I just said a word that society is intolerate of, and so, I'm punished. It's the same way with the 8-year-old in southeast Asia. It's not his fault he didn't get a good enough education. It's the society's.

[Cuchulain]

deleted

[Cuchulain]

He's 8. I don't think it's possible.

I was being sarcastic. Of course its NOT possible because he's 8. Don't you know what goes on in Southeastern Asian factories?

Coca-Cola has never done anything to me other than exchange a beverage for my money.

Well thats the key word, isn't it? Me?

Coca-Cola has slaughtered striking worker's. Thats what it goes through to get from South America to you.

When that 8-year-old grows up, he very well could make a multinational company, and then it would be good for him. Or, he could just be a regular guy. Or, it's more than likely that he wouldn't be educated enough to make one, and he'd struggle knowing very little

Haha nobody that young in a country like that would ever be able to save up scraps of pennies to make a business that would overcome the competition to become a multinational corporation.

They do come out of nowhere; they don't come from the system.

They have to come from somewhere. They don't just sprout out of the air.

It usually comes from race or other origin.

Difference in cultures? That would only appear for like a generation. After more then two, they are pretty much completely intergrated into their new culture.

And blacks have been here for much more then two generations. How do you explain that?

If a white guy went into Harlem, he'd probably be shot

What?!

As a white guy whose lived in Harlem, I can assure you that I have not a single bullet hole in my body.

It's the same thing across the Mason-Dixxon line. I moved to Texas when I was younger -- apparently, people from Texas are rather biased against Jews from New York. You can guess how my childhood was down there.

But nobody shot you, did they?

Heck, before capitalism was invented people killed other people simply because their religion was different. These social problems have absolutely nothing to do with the system. It has to do with the fact that people can't deal with the fact that other people are different.

People are perfectly capable of dealing with difference, and the only case where this is untrue is when there is some great leader pulling propaganda strings.

The basic belief of capitalism is that people can get what they want as long as they put in effort. In other words, people get what they deserve. So, yes, I do believe that capitalism should be made to decide who gets what.

Effort has nothing to do with it. Class and finanical state of upbringing does.

And still, the basic idea is complete trust in the system to deal with your problems. Not only is it completely wrong, but it's also an example of indoctrination because capitalism is taught in such a way in our high schools that it almost always seems desirable. And if, as you say, capitalism's basic idea is to always trust the system, then we have billions of people doing just that.

Now, I know people don't always get what they deserve. There are times I know I sure haven't. That's a social problem, though. Example: when I was in elementary and middle school, I couldn't curse without getting a detention. I don't deserve to get a detention because I didn't offend anyone, I just said a word that society is intolerate of, and so, I'm punished. It's the same way with the 8-year-old in southeast Asia. It's not his fault he didn't get a good enough education. It's the society's.

There is no difference. Any social problem is the responsibility of the system. And kids in Southeast Asia are only this way because their poor.

[RayneAven]

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

They have to come from somewhere. They don't just sprout out of the air.

I apologize; I mispoke. I meant to say that they do come from somewhere, just not from the system.

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

Difference in cultures? That would only appear for like a generation. After more then two, they are pretty much completely intergrated into their new culture.

And blacks have been here for much more then two generations. How do you explain that?

Quite simply, that generation teaches it to their children, and so on.

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

What?!

As a white guy whose lived in Harlem, I can assure you that I have not a single bullet hole in my body.

You get the basic drift, though, right? There are just some places people can't live because of their race or religion. It's simple prejudice.

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

But nobody shot you, did they?

No, but they did like to beat me up.

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

People are perfectly capable of dealing with difference, and the only case where this is untrue is when there is some great leader pulling propaganda strings.

That is not true at all and you know it. In fact, political leaders during colonization were against slavery, but we did it anyway.

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

Effort has nothing to do with it. Class and finanical state of upbringing does.

Tell that to the thousands of people who made something of themselves during the immigration period of the early 1900's.

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

Any social problem is the responsibility of the system.

The Romans lived very much like we do today. They had the same system. You know what their society was like? They had slaves, they were almost always drunk, there was actually a holiday in which men were obligated to beat women, and homosexuality was encouraged. Why are these things considered problems in America today? Because our society doesn't like them. The same system; completely different social problems.

I want to see you prove that social problems are related to the system.

[Cuchulain]

I apologize; I mispoke. I meant to say that they do come from somewhere, just not from the system.

Where?

Quite simply, that generation teaches it to their children, and so on.

I agree, and you will find that those that live poor live much differently then those that live rich, so that lends much more to the idea that poverty is behind. . . well. . .poverty more then any other kind of thing.

You get the basic drift, though, right? There are just some places people can't live because of their race or religion. It's simple prejudice.

Well yes there was prejudice but I never felt like I was gonna be shot.

The only time people really get shot here or anywhere else almost always has to do with something drug related and that is a huge black market and thus a big opportunity for poor.

No, but they did like to beat me up.

Okay that I could fathom.

That is not true at all and you know it. In fact, political leaders during colonization were against slavery, but we did it anyway.

I've never heard anything of the sort so I won't comment but truly multicultural societies have existed. I mean just look at America. Do you think people were celebrating in the streets when the Irish arrived? Hell no, but we're around and for the most part we face very little prejudice. I think blacks and jews are a exception because there are special circumstances surrounding them but for the most part even this prejudice is withering away.

Tell that to the thousands of people who made something of themselves during the immigration period of the early 1900's.

Are we going to pit thousands against billions?

Besides, I don't think working for big bucks has neccesarily improved the lives of the middle class. All its done has turned them into convenient work drones.

The Romans lived very much like we do today. They had the same system.

It would be impossible for you to argue that the roman system was the same as our system today. There was no such thing as democracy back then. They had a republic, yes, for a very short time, but after that it became something of a feudal-esque fascist state, with year after year of oppressive dictators. And most of those people were poor.

You know what their society was like? They had slaves,

Who I believe made up the majority of the population.

they were almost always drunk,

um. .who cares? Besides, do you have any proof of this? Some kind of source?

and homosexuality was encouraged.

Homosexuality was not encouraged, just more accepted. IN general, sex was generally more acceptable during those times whereas nowadays it seems to have become more of a taboo. Besides, who cares about homosexuality anyway? Different strokes for different people.

Why are these things considered problems in America today? Because our society doesn't like them. The same system; completely different social problems.

Well if people in Rome didn't think getting drunk all the time was a problem then obviously it wasn't a social problem.

And actually homosexuality is developing a lot of tolerance of recent. Its not completely tolerated but its getting there.

[RayneAven]

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

Where?

As I have mentioned a couple of times, they come from the society.

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

I think blacks and jews are a exception because there are special circumstances surrounding them but for the most part even this prejudice is withering away.

Yeah, it's withering away in the New England, Mid-Atlantic areas. Not so much in the South and Southwest. Still, the Irish and Italians were accepted with less trouble mostly because they were European.

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

Who I believe made up the majority of the population.

How does that matter? Slaves didn't have a voice, except maybe on the Saturnalia.

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

Homosexuality was not encouraged, just more accepted. IN general, sex was generally more acceptable during those times whereas nowadays it seems to have become more of a taboo. Besides, who cares about homosexuality anyway? Different strokes for different people.

American society on a whole seems to care a good lot about homosexuality. It's waning now, but I remember I had to take a couple classes on GLBT before being able to lobby at DC with my synagogue about a year ago.

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

Well if people in Rome didn't think getting drunk all the time was a problem then obviously it wasn't a social problem.

No they didn't. That's my point. They used the same system as us (granted, it wasn't always that way) and we still have these problems that they didn't have. It's the society that makes the problems, not the system.