Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

I am a Communist

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 7:40:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
According to Wikipedia, Communism is defined as:

"Communism is a social, political and economic movement that aims at the establishment of a classless and stateless communist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production."

In a society free of a coercive state, the kind of society I advocate, people will be free to form collective societies where all things are held in Common. In the New Testament, Christians formed this type of communal society.

Of course, for those who do not want to live in this type of society, many, probably most people, would stay in the private non communal economy. However, if the collective societies proved successful, more people would join and they would grow in size.

Personally, I would stay in the private non communal economy. So, I guess the title of this post is a bit misleading in that I am not directly a communist. However, I do advocate the type of society that would make communism possible, if it really could work.
President of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 7:47:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 7:40:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
According to Wikipedia, Communism is defined as:

"Communism is a social, political and economic movement that aims at the establishment of a classless and stateless communist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production."

In a society free of a coercive state, the kind of society I advocate, people will be free to form collective societies where all things are held in Common. In the New Testament, Christians formed this type of communal society.

Of course, for those who do not want to live in this type of society, many, probably most people, would stay in the private non communal economy. However, if the collective societies proved successful, more people would join and they would grow in size.

Personally, I would stay in the private non communal economy. So, I guess the title of this post is a bit misleading in that I am not directly a communist. However, I do advocate the type of society that would make communism possible, if it really could work.

That's not communism. "Communism" would not include even a potential for an economy since that would go against the strive towards species being. Money as an object separate man from his labor (according to Marx).

You can't have the means of production commonly owned and then say that any group that likes may create their own form of ownership.

You're right, you aren't a communist, and this thread is misleading.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 7:54:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 7:47:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/28/2011 7:40:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
According to Wikipedia, Communism is defined as:

"Communism is a social, political and economic movement that aims at the establishment of a classless and stateless communist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production."

In a society free of a coercive state, the kind of society I advocate, people will be free to form collective societies where all things are held in Common. In the New Testament, Christians formed this type of communal society.

Of course, for those who do not want to live in this type of society, many, probably most people, would stay in the private non communal economy. However, if the collective societies proved successful, more people would join and they would grow in size.

Personally, I would stay in the private non communal economy. So, I guess the title of this post is a bit misleading in that I am not directly a communist. However, I do advocate the type of society that would make communism possible, if it really could work.

That's not communism. "Communism" would not include even a potential for an economy since that would go against the strive towards species being. Money as an object separate man from his labor (according to Marx).

You can't have the means of production commonly owned and then say that any group that likes may create their own form of ownership.

You're right, you aren't a communist, and this thread is misleading.

Wnope, you are confusing Communism and Marxism. They are not the same thing, although they are closely related.

As I acknowledged, I am not really a communist. However, I do advocate the type of society where Communism could be tried, and, if it were successful, then it would grow.

Look at the above definition of communism. That is what communism is. That is all.
President of DDO
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 8:00:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I respect what you are saying.

Most people who have followed your postings in the past have had all sorts of ideas that are shaped by prejudice... However, I see that you are really for a society that allows any man to elevate themselves if they are worthy to do so.

This is the heart of the American spirit, and I have no problems with this.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 8:02:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 7:54:53 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/28/2011 7:47:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/28/2011 7:40:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
According to Wikipedia, Communism is defined as:

"Communism is a social, political and economic movement that aims at the establishment of a classless and stateless communist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production."

In a society free of a coercive state, the kind of society I advocate, people will be free to form collective societies where all things are held in Common. In the New Testament, Christians formed this type of communal society.

Of course, for those who do not want to live in this type of society, many, probably most people, would stay in the private non communal economy. However, if the collective societies proved successful, more people would join and they would grow in size.

Personally, I would stay in the private non communal economy. So, I guess the title of this post is a bit misleading in that I am not directly a communist. However, I do advocate the type of society that would make communism possible, if it really could work.

That's not communism. "Communism" would not include even a potential for an economy since that would go against the strive towards species being. Money as an object separate man from his labor (according to Marx).

You can't have the means of production commonly owned and then say that any group that likes may create their own form of ownership.

You're right, you aren't a communist, and this thread is misleading.

Wnope, you are confusing Communism and Marxism. They are not the same thing, although they are closely related.

As I acknowledged, I am not really a communist. However, I do advocate the type of society where Communism could be tried, and, if it were successful, then it would grow.

Look at the above definition of communism. That is what communism is. That is all.

So you don't believe stateless communism is the step after class war between the bougies and the proles, the transition of power, and the exploitation of remaining capitalist overproduction (which is predicted to exist due to lack of consumer demand)?

Marxist theory describes how communism is achieved and why it is, in his opinion, inevitable. Marxism is a methodology, not a political system.

"Stateless" communism is specifically Marxist. You can say that the general "communist movement" is more general, but "stateless" is specific to marxist theory.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 8:03:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
But truthfully, I would suggest that you look at the way things already are.

If you do so, you will find that all of these things are already true.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 8:04:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I follow this doctrine, which is why I think a better name for my political philosophy other than anarcho-capitalism would be free market anarchism since it doesn't necessitate capitalism. While I think property rights, the division of labor, and voluntary exchange are vital cornerstones to an economically prosperous society, the NAP would prohibit not allowing others to form communes. I think a free market of idea exchange and social experimentation would show which is more efficient and humane, capitalism or communism. Which turns out to be more efficient and humane isn't as important to me as ending institutionalized coercion in society.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 8:15:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 8:04:27 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I follow this doctrine, which is why I think a better name for my political philosophy other than anarcho-capitalism would be free market anarchism since it doesn't necessitate capitalism. While I think property rights, the division of labor, and voluntary exchange are vital cornerstones to an economically prosperous society, the NAP would prohibit not allowing others to form communes. I think a free market of idea exchange and social experimentation would show which is more efficient and humane, capitalism or communism. Which turns out to be more efficient and humane isn't as important to me as ending institutionalized coercion in society.

Ditto for me. I try to avoid the term "anarcho capitalist", because it implies that a "Free Market" is necessary capitalistic...
President of DDO
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 8:20:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 8:15:56 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:04:27 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I follow this doctrine, which is why I think a better name for my political philosophy other than anarcho-capitalism would be free market anarchism since it doesn't necessitate capitalism. While I think property rights, the division of labor, and voluntary exchange are vital cornerstones to an economically prosperous society, the NAP would prohibit not allowing others to form communes. I think a free market of idea exchange and social experimentation would show which is more efficient and humane, capitalism or communism. Which turns out to be more efficient and humane isn't as important to me as ending institutionalized coercion in society.

Ditto for me. I try to avoid the term "anarcho capitalist", because it implies that a "Free Market" is necessary capitalistic...

I enjoy reading Kevin Carson and his definition of capitalism in historical terms rather than ideological terms. Capitalism is therefore defined as a weird State protectionist economy of institutionalized theft. Free market or "freed" market anarchism is a more precise and clear term I think. The term is freed sometimes to emphasize the difference between a truly free market(one free of patent monopolies, tariffs, subsidies, and other State submergers of market forces) and the corporatist capitalism we have now.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 8:20:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 8:04:27 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I follow this doctrine, which is why I think a better name for my political philosophy other than anarcho-capitalism would be free market anarchism since it doesn't necessitate capitalism. While I think property rights, the division of labor, and voluntary exchange are vital cornerstones to an economically prosperous society, the NAP would prohibit not allowing others to form communes. I think a free market of idea exchange and social experimentation would show which is more efficient and humane, capitalism or communism. Which turns out to be more efficient and humane isn't as important to me as ending institutionalized coercion in society.

This is simply how the world works.

The problem with most economic/political theories(which are almost always the same thing) has to do with the fact that people are idealists and don't recognize that everything has already been tried and done. It already is!

Law will be there if you look for it. Anarchy will be there if you look for it.

The truth is, the economy is guided by chaos, and recognizing this is the only way you can truly label yourself an "anarchist". I call this an "anarcho-realist" in direct opposition to the "anarcho-idealists" who have an incomplete picture of the way things actually work.

Organized education will only get you so far. This is why I say, "If you want to get poosie, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library."

Even then, if you really want an education, you are going to have to interact and observe the world as it operates. Isolating yourself, studying the writings of others, and meditating on your own thoughts is not enough.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 8:23:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 8:20:46 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:04:27 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I follow this doctrine, which is why I think a better name for my political philosophy other than anarcho-capitalism would be free market anarchism since it doesn't necessitate capitalism. While I think property rights, the division of labor, and voluntary exchange are vital cornerstones to an economically prosperous society, the NAP would prohibit not allowing others to form communes. I think a free market of idea exchange and social experimentation would show which is more efficient and humane, capitalism or communism. Which turns out to be more efficient and humane isn't as important to me as ending institutionalized coercion in society.

This is simply how the world works.

The problem with most economic/political theories(which are almost always the same thing) has to do with the fact that people are idealists and don't recognize that everything has already been tried and done. It already is!

Law will be there if you look for it. Anarchy will be there if you look for it.

The truth is, the economy is guided by chaos, and recognizing this is the only way you can truly label yourself an "anarchist". I call this an "anarcho-realist" in direct opposition to the "anarcho-idealists" who have an incomplete picture of the way things actually work.

Organized education will only get you so far. This is why I say, "If you want to get poosie, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library."

Even then, if you really want an education, you are going to have to interact and observe the world as it operates. Isolating yourself, studying the writings of others, and meditating on your own thoughts is not enough.

I quite like Marxist theory as a lens by which to examine events. For instance, I can look at a race riot under a cultural determinist lens and say its present conflict between oppressed and oppressors. Then, the marxist lense would also remind you that class differences in the "race riot" are a better predictor of participation.

It's borderline useless and misleading when used as your only lens/methodology.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 8:26:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 8:20:15 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:15:56 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:04:27 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I follow this doctrine, which is why I think a better name for my political philosophy other than anarcho-capitalism would be free market anarchism since it doesn't necessitate capitalism. While I think property rights, the division of labor, and voluntary exchange are vital cornerstones to an economically prosperous society, the NAP would prohibit not allowing others to form communes. I think a free market of idea exchange and social experimentation would show which is more efficient and humane, capitalism or communism. Which turns out to be more efficient and humane isn't as important to me as ending institutionalized coercion in society.

Ditto for me. I try to avoid the term "anarcho capitalist", because it implies that a "Free Market" is necessary capitalistic...

I enjoy reading Kevin Carson and his definition of capitalism in historical terms rather than ideological terms. Capitalism is therefore defined as a weird State protectionist economy of institutionalized theft. Free market or "freed" market anarchism is a more precise and clear term I think. The term is freed sometimes to emphasize the difference between a truly free market(one free of patent monopolies, tariffs, subsidies, and other State submergers of market forces) and the corporatist capitalism we have now.

Absolutely. Capitalism and free markets are not the same thing
President of DDO
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 8:29:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 8:26:05 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:20:15 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:15:56 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:04:27 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I follow this doctrine, which is why I think a better name for my political philosophy other than anarcho-capitalism would be free market anarchism since it doesn't necessitate capitalism. While I think property rights, the division of labor, and voluntary exchange are vital cornerstones to an economically prosperous society, the NAP would prohibit not allowing others to form communes. I think a free market of idea exchange and social experimentation would show which is more efficient and humane, capitalism or communism. Which turns out to be more efficient and humane isn't as important to me as ending institutionalized coercion in society.

Ditto for me. I try to avoid the term "anarcho capitalist", because it implies that a "Free Market" is necessary capitalistic...

I enjoy reading Kevin Carson and his definition of capitalism in historical terms rather than ideological terms. Capitalism is therefore defined as a weird State protectionist economy of institutionalized theft. Free market or "freed" market anarchism is a more precise and clear term I think. The term is freed sometimes to emphasize the difference between a truly free market(one free of patent monopolies, tariffs, subsidies, and other State submergers of market forces) and the corporatist capitalism we have now.

Absolutely. Capitalism and free markets are not the same thing

Carson's idea of vulgar libertarianism also intrigues me. It's the idea that those who use free market rhetoric are in many instances simply apologists for the skewed "free" market in which the U.S. operates. One obvious example is the Republican Party of the United States.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 8:31:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 8:23:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:20:46 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:04:27 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I follow this doctrine, which is why I think a better name for my political philosophy other than anarcho-capitalism would be free market anarchism since it doesn't necessitate capitalism. While I think property rights, the division of labor, and voluntary exchange are vital cornerstones to an economically prosperous society, the NAP would prohibit not allowing others to form communes. I think a free market of idea exchange and social experimentation would show which is more efficient and humane, capitalism or communism. Which turns out to be more efficient and humane isn't as important to me as ending institutionalized coercion in society.

This is simply how the world works.

The problem with most economic/political theories(which are almost always the same thing) has to do with the fact that people are idealists and don't recognize that everything has already been tried and done. It already is!

Law will be there if you look for it. Anarchy will be there if you look for it.

The truth is, the economy is guided by chaos, and recognizing this is the only way you can truly label yourself an "anarchist". I call this an "anarcho-realist" in direct opposition to the "anarcho-idealists" who have an incomplete picture of the way things actually work.

Organized education will only get you so far. This is why I say, "If you want to get poosie, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library."

Even then, if you really want an education, you are going to have to interact and observe the world as it operates. Isolating yourself, studying the writings of others, and meditating on your own thoughts is not enough.

I quite like Marxist theory as a lens by which to examine events. For instance, I can look at a race riot under a cultural determinist lens and say its present conflict between oppressed and oppressors. Then, the marxist lense would also remind you that class differences in the "race riot" are a better predictor of participation.

It's borderline useless and misleading when used as your only lens/methodology.

Im not a big fan of the marxist, cultural determinism lens... Different tribes have had wars for thousands of years... People naturally favor their own kind...
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 8:36:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 8:29:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:26:05 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:20:15 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:15:56 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:04:27 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I follow this doctrine, which is why I think a better name for my political philosophy other than anarcho-capitalism would be free market anarchism since it doesn't necessitate capitalism. While I think property rights, the division of labor, and voluntary exchange are vital cornerstones to an economically prosperous society, the NAP would prohibit not allowing others to form communes. I think a free market of idea exchange and social experimentation would show which is more efficient and humane, capitalism or communism. Which turns out to be more efficient and humane isn't as important to me as ending institutionalized coercion in society.

Ditto for me. I try to avoid the term "anarcho capitalist", because it implies that a "Free Market" is necessary capitalistic...

I enjoy reading Kevin Carson and his definition of capitalism in historical terms rather than ideological terms. Capitalism is therefore defined as a weird State protectionist economy of institutionalized theft. Free market or "freed" market anarchism is a more precise and clear term I think. The term is freed sometimes to emphasize the difference between a truly free market(one free of patent monopolies, tariffs, subsidies, and other State submergers of market forces) and the corporatist capitalism we have now.

Absolutely. Capitalism and free markets are not the same thing

Carson's idea of vulgar libertarianism also intrigues me. It's the idea that those who use free market rhetoric are in many instances simply apologists for the skewed "free" market in which the U.S. operates. One obvious example is the Republican Party of the United States.

This is why I see the word "libertarian" as meaningless. Glenn Beck and Bill Maher called themselves libertarians... Yet, Glenn Beck was for the state violently keeping people from smoking pot and Bill Maher was for violently imposing a Health Care system on the populaton
President of DDO
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 8:59:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 7:54:53 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/28/2011 7:47:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/28/2011 7:40:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
According to Wikipedia, Communism is defined as:

"Communism is a social, political and economic movement that aims at the establishment of a classless and stateless communist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production."

In a society free of a coercive state, the kind of society I advocate, people will be free to form collective societies where all things are held in Common. In the New Testament, Christians formed this type of communal society.

Of course, for those who do not want to live in this type of society, many, probably most people, would stay in the private non communal economy. However, if the collective societies proved successful, more people would join and they would grow in size.

Personally, I would stay in the private non communal economy. So, I guess the title of this post is a bit misleading in that I am not directly a communist. However, I do advocate the type of society that would make communism possible, if it really could work.

That's not communism. "Communism" would not include even a potential for an economy since that would go against the strive towards species being. Money as an object separate man from his labor (according to Marx).

You can't have the means of production commonly owned and then say that any group that likes may create their own form of ownership.

You're right, you aren't a communist, and this thread is misleading.

Wnope, you are confusing Communism and Marxism. They are not the same thing, although they are closely related.

As I acknowledged, I am not really a communist. However, I do advocate the type of society where Communism could be tried, and, if it were successful, then it would grow.

Look at the above definition of communism. That is what communism is. That is all.

Marxism is outlined by a book Karl Marx wrote know as "the Communist Manifesto"

The original title of the "communist manifesto" was "Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei" which is German for "Manifesto of the Communist Party".

Thus Marxism is outlined by the Manifesto for the Communist Party.

Communism is Socialism, but not all Socialism is Communism.

To the same regard, Marxism is Communism but not all Communism is (pure) Marxism, as Sovietism is Communism, but not Marxism.

Sovietism is an expansion of Marxism where they abolish private property, and replace socioeconomic classes with sociopolitical classes.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 9:16:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 8:59:56 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/28/2011 7:54:53 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/28/2011 7:47:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/28/2011 7:40:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
According to Wikipedia, Communism is defined as:

"Communism is a social, political and economic movement that aims at the establishment of a classless and stateless communist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production."

In a society free of a coercive state, the kind of society I advocate, people will be free to form collective societies where all things are held in Common. In the New Testament, Christians formed this type of communal society.

Of course, for those who do not want to live in this type of society, many, probably most people, would stay in the private non communal economy. However, if the collective societies proved successful, more people would join and they would grow in size.

Personally, I would stay in the private non communal economy. So, I guess the title of this post is a bit misleading in that I am not directly a communist. However, I do advocate the type of society that would make communism possible, if it really could work.

That's not communism. "Communism" would not include even a potential for an economy since that would go against the strive towards species being. Money as an object separate man from his labor (according to Marx).

You can't have the means of production commonly owned and then say that any group that likes may create their own form of ownership.

You're right, you aren't a communist, and this thread is misleading.

Wnope, you are confusing Communism and Marxism. They are not the same thing, although they are closely related.

As I acknowledged, I am not really a communist. However, I do advocate the type of society where Communism could be tried, and, if it were successful, then it would grow.

Look at the above definition of communism. That is what communism is. That is all.


Marxism is outlined by a book Karl Marx wrote know as "the Communist Manifesto"

The original title of the "communist manifesto" was "Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei" which is German for "Manifesto of the Communist Party".

Thus Marxism is outlined by the Manifesto for the Communist Party.


Communism is Socialism, but not all Socialism is Communism.

To the same regard, Marxism is Communism but not all Communism is (pure) Marxism, as Sovietism is Communism, but not Marxism.

Sovietism is an expansion of Marxism where they abolish private property, and replace socioeconomic classes with sociopolitical classes.

Jimmy is talking about stateless communism. That isn's socialism or Sovietism (unless they advocated dispanding their own government).
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:08:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 9:16:52 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:59:56 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/28/2011 7:54:53 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/28/2011 7:47:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/28/2011 7:40:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
According to Wikipedia, Communism is defined as:

"Communism is a social, political and economic movement that aims at the establishment of a classless and stateless communist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production."

In a society free of a coercive state, the kind of society I advocate, people will be free to form collective societies where all things are held in Common. In the New Testament, Christians formed this type of communal society.

Of course, for those who do not want to live in this type of society, many, probably most people, would stay in the private non communal economy. However, if the collective societies proved successful, more people would join and they would grow in size.

Personally, I would stay in the private non communal economy. So, I guess the title of this post is a bit misleading in that I am not directly a communist. However, I do advocate the type of society that would make communism possible, if it really could work.

That's not communism. "Communism" would not include even a potential for an economy since that would go against the strive towards species being. Money as an object separate man from his labor (according to Marx).

You can't have the means of production commonly owned and then say that any group that likes may create their own form of ownership.

You're right, you aren't a communist, and this thread is misleading.

Wnope, you are confusing Communism and Marxism. They are not the same thing, although they are closely related.

As I acknowledged, I am not really a communist. However, I do advocate the type of society where Communism could be tried, and, if it were successful, then it would grow.

Look at the above definition of communism. That is what communism is. That is all.


Marxism is outlined by a book Karl Marx wrote know as "the Communist Manifesto"

The original title of the "communist manifesto" was "Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei" which is German for "Manifesto of the Communist Party".

Thus Marxism is outlined by the Manifesto for the Communist Party.


Communism is Socialism, but not all Socialism is Communism.

To the same regard, Marxism is Communism but not all Communism is (pure) Marxism, as Sovietism is Communism, but not Marxism.

Sovietism is an expansion of Marxism where they abolish private property, and replace socioeconomic classes with sociopolitical classes.

Jimmy is talking about stateless communism. That isn's socialism or Sovietism (unless they advocated dispanding their own government).

George Orwell was a Utopian Anarcho-Socialist

Goerge Orwell also opposed Socialist Parties, such as the Labour Party.

Just because your a Anarcho-Socialist does not mean you are not a Socialist.
It does however make you more Anarchist than socialist.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 5:20:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
First, Communism has been tried and is currently the political methodology in at least two Sovereign Nations. This means there is a factual record of its application and viability.
Second, as a matter of applied theory, bees cannot fly.

I suggest a close look and places where communism was tried, so you might understand its reality in contrast to the propaganda of its proponents. The comment that one confuses socialism with communism is most telling.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 11:18:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 7:40:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
According to Wikipedia, Communism is defined as:

"Communism is a social, political and economic movement that aims at the establishment of a classless and stateless communist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production."

In a society free of a coercive state, the kind of society I advocate, people will be free to form collective societies where all things are held in Common. In the New Testament, Christians formed this type of communal society.

Of course, for those who do not want to live in this type of society, many, probably most people, would stay in the private non communal economy. However, if the collective societies proved successful, more people would join and they would grow in size.

Personally, I would stay in the private non communal economy. So, I guess the title of this post is a bit misleading in that I am not directly a communist. However, I do advocate the type of society that would make communism possible, if it really could work.:

Yeah, IF it could work... That's a pretty big disclaimer given there are zero evidentiary instances of it working. Secondly, you living in this communal society creates unto itself *drum roll please* a CLASS, wherein anyone who is not an avowed communist and who does not live within that community is an outsider; that is, a separate class.

There is no such thing as a classless society; there will never be a classless society because communisms greatest foe is not capitalism... it's greatest enemy is, and will always be, HUMAN NATURE.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Marximus
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 12:15:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Just thought it might be interesting to add a link to an article posted on cnn.com today about Marx. The article basically says we should move beyond Marx the bogeyman, and judge the man for the man, his work as his work, and his followers as that, followers.

Here is a quote:

"Marx's actual vision for a government of the future was vague, which no doubt is why it has produced so many variants. But he believed ultimately mankind would naturally evolve out of capitalism and socialism, and embrace a communist society in which government was no longer necessary at all. It is a utopian dream that has occurred nowhere -- least of all in the countries most associated with his name."

http://www.cnn.com...

Cheers