Why Can't This Be Done?

I don't see why you would rather eliminate wealth disparity than let merit take its course.

Feudalism Communism would crush our freedom.

- - - - - -

I don't see the need to struggle against any ruling class. There will always be one, and communism will be no different.

And why is that baby in the video?
 
Three points:

1. Communism can't have a ruling class, otherwise it's not communism.
2. We've "let merit take it's course" so far, and look at where it's gotten us.
3. The ruling class is fighting us. Do you not expect us to fight back? Class struggle is an integral bit for nearly all forms of society, save some schools of leftism. You either fight back, or are oppressed.
 
Sea Bird said:
Three points:

1. Communism can't have a ruling class, otherwise it's not communism.
2. We've "let merit take it's course" so far, and look at where it's gotten us.
3. The ruling class is fighting us. Do you not expect us to fight back? Class struggle is an integral bit for nearly all forms of society, save some schools of leftism. You either fight back, or are oppressed.
Click to expand...

it is not that merit running its course is bad, but the offspring of the meritorious misusing the original wealth to perpetuate their power

and yes, class warfare has been going on for quite a while and we do need to organize and fight back

an interesting example of a meritorious person controlling their heirs wealth is bill gates. he has given most of his wealth to a foundation leaving 'only' $5,000,000 to each of his heirs rather than the billions he has raked in
 
Seriously? "Forced to sell our labor to power"? "Those of us who have chosen to avoid the drudgery of work"? Is this one of those nifty "new ideas" (actually, a very old idea that has never worked anywhere it has been tried)from the extreme left? Gotta hand it to you commies though, even in the face of logic you don't give up. I suppose your loony tune philosophy might take hold with some of the low information idiots here in America, Lord knows we have enough of them here to do some serious damage already.
 
callinectes said:
Seriously? "Forced to sell our labor to power"? "Those of us who have chosen to avoid the drudgery of work"? Is this one of those nifty "new ideas" (actually, a very old idea that has never worked anywhere it has been tried)from the extreme left? Gotta hand it to you commies though, even in the face of logic you don't give up. I suppose your loony tune philosophy might take hold with some of the low information idiots here in America, Lord knows we have enough of them here to do some serious damage already.
Click to expand...

have you ever been in the position of a wage slave?
 
3. The ruling class is fighting us. Do you not expect us to fight back? Class struggle is an integral bit for nearly all forms of society, save some schools of leftism. You either fight back, or are oppressed.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura - Soviets Russia's ruling class

Disorganization is the reason communism will never succeed, imo. It requires the disorganization of personal interests and groups, so far that they can't rally and vie for power. And indeed it is the reason communism is so slow to come to America, taking the roundabout route of scoialism . . .

Communism as I see it idealized, without the corruption, can only occur amongst small communities, independent of one another and in a vacuum insofar as they don't even trade too much with one another. The pure communism can only exist in a vacuum . . .

The moment groups, unions, and diversity evolve one group will attempt to gain more power, and then we end with a distinct ruling class, often smaller than a proper oligarchy. IMO, of course, only the complete selflessness of man would prevent the corruption of communism, and the movement is ultimately a selfish one, isn't it? A bunch of downtrodden worker's fight for what they believe is theirs?
 
You have a point and you don't. If you read AC literature, you'll find that communism is just a massive number of antonymous communities trading among one another. The moral foundation is called Mutual Aid - which is similar to Hobbes' Laws of Nature. It states that, within a communist society, warfare will not break out because it's beneficial to the individual if it doesn't. I.e. "I want the benefits of peace and your labors, so I'll trade with you and not start a war." The primary thing it's limited by is the state. Anarchists have been persecuted by states all throughout history, which has prevented the philosophy from ever taking hold. And further, communism cannot exist next to a state. Unless no powerful states exist, states will brutally exploit anarchist countries.

So while not an anarchist communist myself, I do see the appeal. I generally consider it the most humanitarian and holistic approach to politics.
 
Last edited:
Sea Bird said:
You have a point and you don't. If you read AC literature, you'll find that communism is just a massive number of antonymous communities trading among one another. The moral foundation is called Mutual Aid - which is similar to Hobbes' Laws of Nature. It states that, within a communist society, warfare will not break out because it's beneficial to the individual if it doesn't. I.e. "I want the benefits of peace and your labors, so I'll trade with you and not start a war." The primary thing it's limited by is the state. Anarchists have been persecuted by states all throughout history, which has prevented the philosophy from ever taking hold. And further, communism cannot exist next to a state. Unless no powerful states exist, states will brutally exploit anarchist countries.

So while a anarchist communist myself, I do see the appeal. I generally consider it the most humanitarian and holistic approach to politics.
Click to expand...

if the world was comprised of villages as nations your plan might have a bit of a go, but the world is as it is and what might work in a village will not work in cities
 
Don Quixote said:
if the world was comprised of villages as nations your plan might have a bit of a go, but the world is as it is and what might work in a village will not work in cities
Click to expand...

There would be some issues in the larger cities. You're right in that regard. But they don't have to stay.

Also, I made a mistake in my post. I meant to write "While not an anarchist communist myself..."
 
Don Quixote said:
have you ever been in the position of a wage slave?
Click to expand...
What the heck is a "wage slave"? For almost 40 years, I have had a job for which I have been paid a wage. The alternatives? I go all Grizzly Adams and move to the woods, or maybe a life of crime. How about I sit on my ass and pontificate about the evils of capitalism and the drudgery of work while waiting for the government to feed, clothe and shelter me?
 
I'm waiting for a draconia reference.

See one of the last fiction novels I read, back when I cared to read fiction, was an alternative history book. In this book, placed at 1945, Loyalist colonists from England ran off to Cape Horn when America broke free.

They anolished slavery at first, but their warlike nature led them to charge usury to the conquered. They eventually just made evrything cost too much and kept all non-colonials as permanent servants, imposing laws on the conduct of those in debt. While the nobility was expected to contribute to an elite strike squad, the . . . forgot their names, but they served as armour janissaries of sorts. A reserve squad of nobility kept internal peace while the plebs waged war on nasty Hitler (whom they attacked) ad then Russia (who attacked China).

Long story short, Draconia was successful in collapsing the USSR, taking all of India and Europe, and then the Chinese nuked them 40 years later and a slave revolt.

When I hear slave labour I think of Imperialistic Draconia.
 
Last edited:
pisskop said:
I don't see why you would rather eliminate wealth disparity than let merit take its course.

Feudalism Communism would crush our freedom.

- - - - - -

I don't see the need to struggle against any ruling class. There will always be one, and communism will be no different.

And why is that baby in the video?
Click to expand...

Your 'freedom' is a myth.
 
pisskop said:
I think I know where you are going, but do explain.
Click to expand...

Allow me to do it for him.

Freedom does not exist under a period of class domination. What we experience now is not freedom. It is not democracy. It's an attack on the historical and material significance of the working class.
 
pisskop said:
I think I know where you are going, but do explain.
Click to expand...

What you think are freedoms are, in fact, given to you by those who control you. They can give and they can take, Under bush particularly, you lost many of those 'freedoms'. Your government first made you frightened (and there was no more to fear than at any other time) and then saved you from that (false) danger by taking away the freedoms they once gave you.
They play this game to make you governable and compliant. And they always succeed!
I have just posted a well known vid clip under 'No excuses' thread title. It hints at the myth.
 
Lowaicue said:
What you think are freedoms are, in fact, given to you by those who control you. They can give and they can take, Under bush particularly, you lost many of those 'freedoms'. Your government first made you frightened (and there was no more to fear than at any other time) and then saved you from that (false) danger by taking away the freedoms they once gave you.
They play this game to make you governable and compliant. And they always succeed!
I have just posted a well known vid clip under 'No excuses' thread title. It hints at the myth.
Click to expand...


Sea Bird said:
Allow me to do it for him.

Freedom does not exist under a period of class domination. What we experience now is not freedom. It is not democracy. It's an attack on the historical and material significance of the working class.
Click to expand...

I won't deny that there is an influential group (but they're not a class, are they? Not in the traditional sense), or that they have their own best interests at heart. Their best interests are to keep us as a mass placated or otherwise occupied. I simply do not believe that their overthrow would be worth the effort. New ones would rise in their place, and a more . . . stable, centralized, authoritarian government in its stead. We I survive fine on our current system, better than I would as a commie.

Maybe I am off-track here, though. Tell me what freedoms I lost, ones that were irrefutable?

Tell me, how would communism deal with the poor, lazy, unemployable, the sick, the skill-less, those of menial capability?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top