|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On February 02 2010 03:54 Incognito wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 03:38 Mystlord wrote:On February 02 2010 02:00 Incognito wrote:On February 02 2010 01:54 Mystlord wrote:On February 02 2010 01:46 Incognito wrote:
You can define left as collectivist and right as individualist. You don't have to define it as left = equality and right = hierarchy. Not necessarily. Collectivist doesn't imply equality. And there's a difference between class and individualist. Think caste system. Fascism is the same in its goals. Their only difference is how to get there. What?? You're using your definition as a standard to judge my alternative proposed definition? You can't really do that...Just look at left/right strictly in terms of individualist/collectivist. Then maybe add equality as another factor, not as the absolute standard. Oh. K. My brain wasn't working apparently. Unfortunately by that definition, fascism and nationalism would both fall under left. Caste system would be in the nowhere area, aristocracy would be in the nowhere area as well. Basically individualist only works if all right = capitalism, which isn't true. And I still don't see why left = egalitarian and right = hierarchy and social order don't work. left = equality right = hierarchy is not exactly true. From the rightist perspective, its leftist propaganda (or at least its criticism thats coming from the left). From the Republican point of view they aren't hierarchical. A lot of them believe in equality but think that the free market will do it better than the government. Others care about equality but care about individualism more. Republicans/Democrats want the same things pretty much except they go about different ways of doing them. I don't think that makes both parties leftist. I'd take both definitions of left/right into account (there may be more definitions too) and say that its a circle. (Although I don't really like using the left-right categorizations). You can't just look at one category to describe political policies. Fascism/Communism/Nationalism/Socialism at the top of the circle and everything else in between.
Regardless of what the Right winger things, it's an accurate description. If you don't want to say hierarchical, perhaps social order would be a nicer term? By egalitarian, I meant equality of outcome not opportunity. Perhaps that caused the initial confusion. Right wingers want to preserve the existing social order and, although they might not say it, their wealth. Their support of capitalism is a way through which they can both justify their wealth and also as a direct opposition to labor. Mind you, I'm talking about a certain part of right wingers. There are still those radicals who will only support corporatism or something of the sort.
Republicans and Democrats are not the best example of a left vs right wing.
|
On February 02 2010 19:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 08:32 Yurebis wrote:
But an anarchy is exactly that, the absence of a state... so there must be something in common with marxism's ends? Which are as you say a "society without class and without state". That's one out of two, the second part being the "communist" in "anarcho-comunist".
And damn, I heard of Sartre before but did not know he was a communist until you mentioned him... that blows lol. Any sympathy I had for him is gone...
I'm not going to pick on your collectivism too much. Just one point. You can't know what the 'common good' is. You know why? Because you are only yourself. You as a member of a collective, still can only evaluate what you want, and only approximate what others want. The planner as well. He's only the planner, and the planner can only approximate what he thinks the common good needs and wants. These approximations get exponentially (non-mathematically speaking) immeasurable as the common good grows.
This is one aspect where the free market completely beats even the purest and best leaders of socialism or communism. In the free market, these systems of decisions are incredibly disperse, and every "greedy" person's evaluations are valves and meters for the system. That is the price control system, and no single leader or artificial hierarchy of leaders can beat the free association of people, regardless whether you think private property is right or not. Though it is certainly the case that if you think it is wrong, then the whole utilitarian argument shouldn't appeal you at all and I defend you there. If you think that's wrong, that's k. I have my own set of "wrong" things to complain about.
However, do not ever, ever come to me saying that your system is the most efficient (edit: not saying you did, I'm asking beforehand because I'm that presumptuous), or the one that elevates the standards of living the most, because that would be a lie sir, a pure lie. It cannot come to be, at any medium to large scale of production, because no single person can plan that which the market does dispersedly. Only an immeasurable number of "greedy" producers, attempting to provide for "greedy" consumers acting voluntarily, buying from the efficient and ostracizing the inefficient can incentivize everyone to do their very best. That level of efficiency I argue, cannot be brought about by a system without unhampered price controls, be it due to the absence of private property or the abuse of a state. Oh my god that was a load of libertarian bullshit right here.
Edit: That is why, between a voluntary communist society, and a voluntary capitalist society, I would choose the latter, for pure utilitarian reasons... when it's right past the non-aggression principle.
Almost all serious French philosophers of the XXth century were Marxists: Althusser, Sartres, Foucault, Deleuze, Guattari, Badiou, Rancière, Canguilhem, etc etc etc... I wouldn't take very seriously a liberal philosopher, and I would laugh a lot at any kind of right winger philosopher. Anarchy implies chaos and abscence of order. That's not the case of Communism. For god sake, stop discussing this and if you are interested, read Manifesto. here it is. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/You obviously can know what the common good is. Read any serious philosopher. And obviously common good is not what most people or everybody think is good. Now you talk a lot about "efficiency". That's what Deleuze call the Capitalist axiomatic. And I completely agree with you. The only problem is that you are already reasonning in Capitalist ideology. That's exactly why Marx was dismissing Economy for being a Bourgeois Science, and was replacing it by Economic Economy, where the real question is not "How", but "Who". Let's take US. It's very efficient. It has a very strong economy (ok, not since the crisis, but in general). It "works" amazing. In Capitalist ideology, it is an incredible success. Well, you see, from my point of view, there is almost nothing good about this country. If I had to make my own axe of Evil, I would put US first. The American dream is empty nihilism, and the life it proposes doesn't have any value. You know, in a way I am admirative. If I thought my goal in life was to consume as much as possible, to earn as much money as I can, and I thought that rationnality is to be concerned only by your self interest, I would shoot myself. I am very serious.
Well it's obvious we're not using the same definition of anarchy. I'm talking anarchy as a starting principle ideology, where the ideal world would be one without a state. We both agree on that axiom, don't we?
What I'm pointing out is that you're overdoing it on calling capitalists greedy and nihilist as a default. Let me try to use a collectivist language so you understand:
Pretend that France succeeded in abolishing the state and is now a communist (anarcho-communist, in my definition) society, with the details of your choice. Everyone is happy and dandy. Great.
Here in the US, "we" the people decided that the state is unnecessary, and also disposed of all the bureaucrat class. Also great. However, "we" chose to maintain private property rights with some homesteading principles. Larger properties like cities would naturally be harder to manage but eventually everything settles at what it is today again, minus the overhead of a state and national security
What is wrong with "us" choosing this form of social organization, when there's no one forcing their wishes onto another, and everyone agreeing with it? Are we all greedy? Would this simply be impossible? What's wrong with anarcho-capitalism besides your dislike of private property?
Edit: One more question, and I'm sorry if I'm abusing you, but can you enlighten me briefly, what is the common good? I thought it was something like "that which you find good for everyone". Do you think there can exist an objective, concrete, absolute concept of "common good", outside of the individual? It's not obvious, if otherwise, as you can have your conception of "that which is good for everyone", and I have mine. To me, the common good would be freedom from aggression, and aggression would have to be further defined in some libertarian fashion.
|
On February 03 2010 02:07 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 03:54 Incognito wrote:On February 02 2010 03:38 Mystlord wrote:On February 02 2010 02:00 Incognito wrote:On February 02 2010 01:54 Mystlord wrote:On February 02 2010 01:46 Incognito wrote:
You can define left as collectivist and right as individualist. You don't have to define it as left = equality and right = hierarchy. Not necessarily. Collectivist doesn't imply equality. And there's a difference between class and individualist. Think caste system. Fascism is the same in its goals. Their only difference is how to get there. What?? You're using your definition as a standard to judge my alternative proposed definition? You can't really do that...Just look at left/right strictly in terms of individualist/collectivist. Then maybe add equality as another factor, not as the absolute standard. Oh. K. My brain wasn't working apparently. Unfortunately by that definition, fascism and nationalism would both fall under left. Caste system would be in the nowhere area, aristocracy would be in the nowhere area as well. Basically individualist only works if all right = capitalism, which isn't true. And I still don't see why left = egalitarian and right = hierarchy and social order don't work. left = equality right = hierarchy is not exactly true. From the rightist perspective, its leftist propaganda (or at least its criticism thats coming from the left). From the Republican point of view they aren't hierarchical. A lot of them believe in equality but think that the free market will do it better than the government. Others care about equality but care about individualism more. Republicans/Democrats want the same things pretty much except they go about different ways of doing them. I don't think that makes both parties leftist. I'd take both definitions of left/right into account (there may be more definitions too) and say that its a circle. (Although I don't really like using the left-right categorizations). You can't just look at one category to describe political policies. Fascism/Communism/Nationalism/Socialism at the top of the circle and everything else in between. Regardless of what the Right winger things, it's an accurate description. If you don't want to say hierarchical, perhaps social order would be a nicer term? By egalitarian, I meant equality of outcome not opportunity. Perhaps that caused the initial confusion. Right wingers want to preserve the existing social order and, although they might not say it, their wealth. Their support of capitalism is a way through which they can both justify their wealth and also as a direct opposition to labor. Mind you, I'm talking about a certain part of right wingers. There are still those radicals who will only support corporatism or something of the sort. Republicans and Democrats are not the best example of a left vs right wing.
Your analysis presupposes that the preservation of the existing social order is bad. Why? I feel like you need to:
a) prove that the way society currently works is shitty
and
b) prove that there exists another more productive mode of functioning of society
and
c) justify the avenues for this change with the costs and benefits involved in the shift
|
On February 03 2010 03:34 duckett wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 02:07 Mystlord wrote:On February 02 2010 03:54 Incognito wrote:On February 02 2010 03:38 Mystlord wrote:On February 02 2010 02:00 Incognito wrote:On February 02 2010 01:54 Mystlord wrote:On February 02 2010 01:46 Incognito wrote:
You can define left as collectivist and right as individualist. You don't have to define it as left = equality and right = hierarchy. Not necessarily. Collectivist doesn't imply equality. And there's a difference between class and individualist. Think caste system. Fascism is the same in its goals. Their only difference is how to get there. What?? You're using your definition as a standard to judge my alternative proposed definition? You can't really do that...Just look at left/right strictly in terms of individualist/collectivist. Then maybe add equality as another factor, not as the absolute standard. Oh. K. My brain wasn't working apparently. Unfortunately by that definition, fascism and nationalism would both fall under left. Caste system would be in the nowhere area, aristocracy would be in the nowhere area as well. Basically individualist only works if all right = capitalism, which isn't true. And I still don't see why left = egalitarian and right = hierarchy and social order don't work. left = equality right = hierarchy is not exactly true. From the rightist perspective, its leftist propaganda (or at least its criticism thats coming from the left). From the Republican point of view they aren't hierarchical. A lot of them believe in equality but think that the free market will do it better than the government. Others care about equality but care about individualism more. Republicans/Democrats want the same things pretty much except they go about different ways of doing them. I don't think that makes both parties leftist. I'd take both definitions of left/right into account (there may be more definitions too) and say that its a circle. (Although I don't really like using the left-right categorizations). You can't just look at one category to describe political policies. Fascism/Communism/Nationalism/Socialism at the top of the circle and everything else in between. Regardless of what the Right winger things, it's an accurate description. If you don't want to say hierarchical, perhaps social order would be a nicer term? By egalitarian, I meant equality of outcome not opportunity. Perhaps that caused the initial confusion. Right wingers want to preserve the existing social order and, although they might not say it, their wealth. Their support of capitalism is a way through which they can both justify their wealth and also as a direct opposition to labor. Mind you, I'm talking about a certain part of right wingers. There are still those radicals who will only support corporatism or something of the sort. Republicans and Democrats are not the best example of a left vs right wing. Your analysis presupposes that the preservation of the existing social order is bad. Why? I feel like you need to: a) prove that the way society currently works is shitty and b) prove that there exists another more productive mode of functioning of society and c) justify the avenues for this change with the costs and benefits involved in the shift
That would need to be one long ass post, without work the size of about 1000 pages it is impossible
|
On February 03 2010 02:07 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 03:54 Incognito wrote:On February 02 2010 03:38 Mystlord wrote:On February 02 2010 02:00 Incognito wrote:On February 02 2010 01:54 Mystlord wrote:On February 02 2010 01:46 Incognito wrote:
You can define left as collectivist and right as individualist. You don't have to define it as left = equality and right = hierarchy. Not necessarily. Collectivist doesn't imply equality. And there's a difference between class and individualist. Think caste system. Fascism is the same in its goals. Their only difference is how to get there. What?? You're using your definition as a standard to judge my alternative proposed definition? You can't really do that...Just look at left/right strictly in terms of individualist/collectivist. Then maybe add equality as another factor, not as the absolute standard. Oh. K. My brain wasn't working apparently. Unfortunately by that definition, fascism and nationalism would both fall under left. Caste system would be in the nowhere area, aristocracy would be in the nowhere area as well. Basically individualist only works if all right = capitalism, which isn't true. And I still don't see why left = egalitarian and right = hierarchy and social order don't work. left = equality right = hierarchy is not exactly true. From the rightist perspective, its leftist propaganda (or at least its criticism thats coming from the left). From the Republican point of view they aren't hierarchical. A lot of them believe in equality but think that the free market will do it better than the government. Others care about equality but care about individualism more. Republicans/Democrats want the same things pretty much except they go about different ways of doing them. I don't think that makes both parties leftist. I'd take both definitions of left/right into account (there may be more definitions too) and say that its a circle. (Although I don't really like using the left-right categorizations). You can't just look at one category to describe political policies. Fascism/Communism/Nationalism/Socialism at the top of the circle and everything else in between. Regardless of what the Right winger things, it's an accurate description. If you don't want to say hierarchical, perhaps social order would be a nicer term? By egalitarian, I meant equality of outcome not opportunity. Perhaps that caused the initial confusion. Right wingers want to preserve the existing social order and, although they might not say it, their wealth. Their support of capitalism is a way through which they can both justify their wealth and also as a direct opposition to labor. Mind you, I'm talking about a certain part of right wingers. There are still those radicals who will only support corporatism or something of the sort. Republicans and Democrats are not the best example of a left vs right wing.
[Socialism/Social Democracy is also hierarchical]. Regardless of what the Socialist thinks, it's an accurate description. If you don't want to say that its hierarchical, perhaps social order would be a nicer term? By egalitarian, I mean the perception of equality when state gives you the leftovers. Perhaps that caused the initial confusion. Right wingers want to preserve the existing social order and, although they might not say it, their wealth. This is a totally unjustifiable statement. They may want to preserve capitalism, but that does not mean that they want to preserve the existing social hierarchy. Their support of capitalism is may possibly be a way through which they can both justify their wealth and also as a direct opposition to consumers, but it could also be that they believe that capitalism will eventually lead to a more equal society once capital has accumulated to such a high level that the return on investment decreases and workers get a higher share of the national income. Mind you, I'm talking about my perception of those evil capitalist part of right wingers. There are still those radicals who will only support the evils of corporatism or something of the sort.
Republicans and Democrats are not the best example of a left vs right wing. Ok, so they're actually quite similar. But from an ideological point of view, there are large differences in their ideas in terms of what you describe as equality/hierarchy.
When you have to poke at someone's (or, lots of people's) motives in order to support your argument, people lose respect for your argument.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On February 03 2010 02:07 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 03:54 Incognito wrote:On February 02 2010 03:38 Mystlord wrote:On February 02 2010 02:00 Incognito wrote:On February 02 2010 01:54 Mystlord wrote:On February 02 2010 01:46 Incognito wrote:
You can define left as collectivist and right as individualist. You don't have to define it as left = equality and right = hierarchy. Not necessarily. Collectivist doesn't imply equality. And there's a difference between class and individualist. Think caste system. Fascism is the same in its goals. Their only difference is how to get there. What?? You're using your definition as a standard to judge my alternative proposed definition? You can't really do that...Just look at left/right strictly in terms of individualist/collectivist. Then maybe add equality as another factor, not as the absolute standard. Oh. K. My brain wasn't working apparently. Unfortunately by that definition, fascism and nationalism would both fall under left. Caste system would be in the nowhere area, aristocracy would be in the nowhere area as well. Basically individualist only works if all right = capitalism, which isn't true. And I still don't see why left = egalitarian and right = hierarchy and social order don't work. left = equality right = hierarchy is not exactly true. From the rightist perspective, its leftist propaganda (or at least its criticism thats coming from the left). From the Republican point of view they aren't hierarchical. A lot of them believe in equality but think that the free market will do it better than the government. Others care about equality but care about individualism more. Republicans/Democrats want the same things pretty much except they go about different ways of doing them. I don't think that makes both parties leftist. I'd take both definitions of left/right into account (there may be more definitions too) and say that its a circle. (Although I don't really like using the left-right categorizations). You can't just look at one category to describe political policies. Fascism/Communism/Nationalism/Socialism at the top of the circle and everything else in between. Regardless of what the Right winger things, it's an accurate description. If you don't want to say hierarchical, perhaps social order would be a nicer term? By egalitarian, I meant equality of outcome not opportunity. Perhaps that caused the initial confusion. Right wingers want to preserve the existing social order and, although they might not say it, their wealth. Their support of capitalism is a way through which they can both justify their wealth and also as a direct opposition to labor. Mind you, I'm talking about a certain part of right wingers. There are still those radicals who will only support corporatism or something of the sort. Republicans and Democrats are not the best example of a left vs right wing.
[Socialism/Social Democracy is also hierarchical] Not in the way that Conservatism is.. If you don't want to say that its hierarchical, perhaps social order would be a nicer term? By egalitarian, I mean the perception of equality when state gives you the leftovers Fail. Perhaps that caused the initial confusion. Right wingers want to preserve the existing social order and, although they might not say it, their wealth. This is a totally unjustifiable statement. They may want to preserve capitalism, but that does not mean that they want to preserve the existing social hierarchy. Yes they do. They undoubtedly believe that a social hierarchy or social order exists or is inevitable. Their support of capitalism is a way through which they can both justify their wealth and also as a direct opposition to labor, but it could also be that they believe that capitalism will eventually lead to a more equal society once capital has accumulated to such a high level that the return on investment decreases and workers get a higher share of the national income the perpetuation of the social hierarchy (with them at the top). Mind you, I'm talking about my perception the truth of those evil capitalist[/b] part of right wingers. There are still those radicals who will only support the evils of corporatism or something of the sort.
Republicans and Democrats are not the best example of a left vs right wing. [i]Ok, so they're actually quite similar. But from an ideological point of view, there are large differences in their ideas in terms of what you describe as equality/hierarchy. No, there aren't.
When you have to poke at someone's (or, lots of people's) motives in order to support your argument, people lose respect for your argument. When people try to justify a system that has been proven to be flawed, their motivations must be selfish.
|
On January 29 2010 15:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
I thought I'd covered all the bases, but whoever voted other, what are you?
I pick 5pool
|
Not in the way that Conservatism is..
It makes people dependent on the state, which is dependent on the rich people. And deficit spending helps the rich.
Fail
How? If I start handing you free food, social security, health care etc. you'd probably be happy too. Doesnt make them equal. So I guess I'm talking about social democracy here, not socialism.
Yes they do. They undoubtedly believe that a social hierarchy or social order exists or is inevitable.
This statement has no discussion value.
the perpetuation of the social hierarchy (with them at the top)
Please read the theory on capitalism instead of just mechanically spewing leftist rhetoric.
the truth
well unless you are one of those "right wingers" I dont think you can really know...
No, there aren't.
Again, do you want to provide something of discussion value? This statement isn't even that opinionated, I'm starting to think that you may be yelling at me just on reflex/because you can. I also meant to say large enough differences, not just large differences.
When people try to justify a system that has been proven to be flawed, their motivations must be selfish.
We haven't had real capitalism, we currently oscillate between moderate fascism and moderate socialism depending on who's in power (in the US, that is). I.E. disguised moderate state capitalism/corporatism. You can hardly consider that capitalist. So no, there really is no real proof that capitalism is tragically flawed with so little hope that we must turn to socialism.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
K we're hijacking the thread. Continue conversation elsewhere.
|
If only American elections could give us this many options . . . if only. We get TWO.
|
But who owns the thread? That is for them to decide, whether a hijack has occurred lol
|
On February 03 2010 04:41 Yurebis wrote:
But who owns the thread? That is for them to decide, whether a hijack has occurred lol
I think because it seems we're arguing at each other instead of having a discussion? Who knows.
|
Well I could have jumped in but it would be unfair 2v1 no re. But I think it's very on topic, TL doesn't have that many political threads most of the time, only very few concatenated ones.
|
On January 29 2010 16:38 Mystlord wrote:
Socialist. Free market economies never work. Corporations always screw things up.
/facepalm
There are levels of ignorance that astound me.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On February 03 2010 15:11 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2010 16:38 Mystlord wrote:
Socialist. Free market economies never work. Corporations always screw things up. /facepalm There are levels of ignorance that astound me.
Well fine. Monopolies always screw things up. Happy?
|
On February 03 2010 15:22 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 15:11 Savio wrote:On January 29 2010 16:38 Mystlord wrote:
Socialist. Free market economies never work. Corporations always screw things up. /facepalm There are levels of ignorance that astound me. Well fine. Monopolies always screw things up. Happy?
oligopolies are pretty shitty too
|
One should not entirely base one's conception of a conservative or right wing on the extreme protestant rooted American version of these categories. There are many other philosophical avenues which lead to similar ideologies.
|
On February 03 2010 15:22 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 15:11 Savio wrote:On January 29 2010 16:38 Mystlord wrote:
Socialist. Free market economies never work. Corporations always screw things up. /facepalm There are levels of ignorance that astound me. Well fine. Monopolies always screw things up. Happy?
The state is the biggest monopoly of all.. and not because they're efficient.
It is the one monopoly who controls all others, like the One ring of power! That can't be good, right? Are you pro-Sauron?!? Are you?!? You scum! lol
|
On February 02 2010 07:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 04:24 Yurebis wrote:
I don't think communism by itself implies statelessness, that would be anarcho-communism as I said b4, but I won't argue semantics and instead I'll agree with that, the ends of communism may be an anarchical society after all and that's great.
Edit: By that's great, I mean, it stops there. At the ends. Because every means that use state force fail in my book, by my subjective principles... I don't use historical interpretations as premises for anything.
You lost me where you said that a society can be ruled by greed. Tell me, how can you discern between a greedy person and a non-greedy person? And how can you discern someone that has self-interest for one who does not?
Because you see, I don't see any difference. Greed and egoism to me are inherent characteristics of rational beings, for they cannot be, feel, or think what others do. He can only be himself. Even the most altruistic person is only acting on his own perception of what is the world he is trying to help. He can only estimate what others want, only guess what they need. I think a better criteria that would separate the "greedy" for the "non-greedy" the popular way, is someone who's short-sighted versus long-sighted. I think the more "altruistic" people realize that in the long run, collaboration trumps defection (prisoner's dilemma, etc.) and so they work for that future, while the more "greedy" ones might just see short term goals and forget that people are able to retaliate, hold grudges, ostracize him back.
A second point is that, how can someone you deem to be "non-greedy" possibly be justified in enforcing that which is good for the common good through statist violence? If that which is good for the common good was really good for everyone, then how come everyone isn't already up-in-arms against the bourgeois, or the state already? It would be anarcho-communism as is. Well, forget it, it's too much praxeology aka libertarian bullshit for one post...
Sorry but you don't know what you are talking about. It's not about "I think that Communism is". Communism is an invention of Marx. Go read Marx. If you haven't, don't tell someone who has read it all what Communism is or is not. Communism is society without class and without state. Period. And it ahs nothing to do with anarchy.
I've read some of the communist manifesto and I have some contentions against your claim that communism (as Marx described it) is stateless and classless. Reading this part is enough to see why that is not so. This is from page 20:
+ Show Spoiler +The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the
bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the
proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly
as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads
on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of
measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the
course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social
order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally
applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public
purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national
bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of
the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state;
the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil
generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies,
especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition
of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution
of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's
factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial
production, etc.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all
production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the
public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely
the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest
with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class;
if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by
force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept
away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will
thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall
have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free
development of all.
My complaint starts with step number 2. How can you enforce an income tax, if no class has political power over another? If it was voluntary, it can't be called a tax, it's a voluntary donation for a cause, or maybe even an implicit purchase for a service. If it's a tax, then it's not voluntary, it's you requesting that I give you a fraction of my earnings or transactions. How can the person Bob who is in the same class as James force James to pay for something he does not want? It can't be done. And if it can, then what is to stop James from forcing Bob to pay him back that which was taxed in the first place? It's a logical contradiction. To have a tax and enforceable, positivist procedures, you have to acknowledge the justifications of a superior planning class.
Now step 4. Note the use of the word "confiscate". When you confiscate, you take something from someone and it then becomes someone else's property. In this case, it seems a transfer of wealth from the emigrants and rebels, to the proletariat class (which = the new government basically).
5,6,7 clearly denominates that there is a state, so your initial declaration that communism as marx describes it is a society without state is false by marx's own words.. There is a state, but it's a kind and loving state that takes care of the proletariat class and makes everything better. I doubt it, for reasons I've said before... not going to say them again.
8, and 10. Again, how do you enforce that if everyone's the same class? Bob can't tell James to go to work, or order him to go teach the kids for free. Bob is the same class as James, if Bob can order James to go do X, James can order Bob to go fuck himself. So communism in this marxist conception is hardly stateless, hardly classless. There has to be a state and a planner class to determine what is the "common good", what factories have to be built, what needs to be done.
I don't feel like reading it anymore... it's too contradictory and arbitrary for me. It seems communism wants to justify a capital takeover from the "bourgeois" to the state by asserting property rights don't exist, when in fact they are still maintaining property rights, only transferring all property to the state. So there are classes still, there is a state still...
Anarcho-communism however is a different species that I could come to respect, since it can exist within an anarcho-capitalist society, and (sometimes, depending on the property claim) vice-versa. Your state would just have to earn that property and capital voluntarily.
May I suggest that you look up, this time, what I mean by anarchy? Or have I misunderstood something?
|
On February 03 2010 16:17 L wrote:
One should not entirely base one's conception of a conservative or right wing on the extreme protestant rooted American version of these categories. There are many other philosophical avenues which lead to similar ideologies.
yeah, like the extreme catholic rooted Maistre version
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
