Communism Is The Only Way Forward

[Seon]

I am afraid that I am a libertarian, Abby.

And what exactly do you think will happen without a government?

 

[Alassius]

Indeed this is true. The classical liberals believed that it was somehow possible to restrain the state and to limit it to the role of protecting peoples' rights. Jefferson's worship of the American constitution is probably the archetype. He, and many others of his generation, believed that mere words on bits of paper could stop tyranny. Well, we all know how that turned out.

Erm, you mean it turned out pretty well for America?

Anarchism started in the nineteenth century, well after the foundations of classical liberalism were in place. The early anarchists, notably Proudhon, were properly outraged at the depravity of the state but had little answer to it. True anarchist theory is an outgrowth of classical liberal thought but more rigorous in its repudiation of power.

"Outgrowth" in the sense that you can probably find some connection between any two random philosophy schools, i.e. six degrees of separation. It doesn't mean the classical liberals were going to agree with you.

Modern mainstream left-wing thought is completely and utterly incoherent and has little to do with either Smith or Marx. It is based on the notion that you can use a system whose purpose is to enable the powerful to steal from the powerless in order to protect the powerless. This is absurd on the face of it. Despite this no matter how often they fail, they keep on trying. All they ever succeed in doing is expanding the circle of thieves. I sometimes suspect that this is the true objective. Certainly they pat themselves on their backs every time that they increase the weight of the state on ordinary folk.

Coherent or not modern politics is Smithian. The notion is that selfish individuals would have to do good things if you limit their ability to do bad things. The government serves to stop the powerful capitalists from stealing from the proletarians, whereas the limitations on the government serves to stop the government itself from becoming the powerful oppressor. In other words, modern politics assumes power cannot be abolished, so it seeks to limit its damage instead, by separating power between the individual and the government, and further between different branches of the government. Anarchists treat absolute power and limited power as the same, and think both are bad things. Both Marx and you argued for the latter.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Because that's totally what happened.

Well, actually that is true. Most of the Mongols infamous razing came into affect after the conquest of that Iranian empire (I don't remember their name).

Also it would be nice to get an answer that actually tells me why I'm wrong, rather than I'm just wrong. I'm in no way an expert on this type of stuff, but I'm always willing to learn.

... Jin = China?

When did I say that? I was merely commenting on that Genghis' original intent with his invasion of China (the Jin came under the gun first, so I used the reasons for war from there) wasn't to oppress the peasants or whatever.

 

[Ajidica]

Iranian empire (I don't remember their name).

It's called the Khwarezmid Empire.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Thank you!

 

[Stiefel]

The Mongol invasion of China was a prime example of how the poor can usurp the rich utilizing their own wealth and prosperity against them. An irony fit for proletariat use.

 

[Ajidica]

The above post is probably a very good indicator of why Marxists really shouldn't teach history.
You can't apply bougeoisie/proletariat class struggles to a feudal system. Sure, they were present but they weren't developed into the modern form.

 

[Skwink]

Capitalism has had its shot and failed. People say that the Soviet Union failed, but that's just a load of poppycock. The Soviet Union ended because they spent way too much money on the military, which was ultimately the American's fault.
Capitalism is cruel and unjust. People say that capitalism works because they are bourgeois Americans with health insurance. But in the real world, the world of starving millions, famine, drought, war and murder, people cannot live their lives like they ought to able to, with a home, a real job, a good wage and a place to live.
Capitalism cannot grant people these things, because it's all about making money, and you need money to make money. Thus the people in the poorest parts of the world with little or no infrastructure cannot get the help that they need from capitalism, and the scarcity of resources leads inevitably to war, as it has done for centuries.
People say that Communism had its chance and failed. This is not true.
It has only just begun!

Because many Commie Countries have turned out great!!!!

 

[innonimatu]

You seem to think that government is necessarily a synonym for theft. It isn't.

No, it is a synonym for social hierarchy, and in that hierarchy someone will always, more or less often, abuse power, thus the exploitation.
You are the one associating government, or rather, the state, with theft. Which, as I pointed out, is absurd. Theft being a legal definition and the state being the enactor, interpreter and enforcer of law, it never needs to steal.

You seem to come from the libertarians side which claims privileges such as the full use of private property and rants against the state, forgetting that they owe the continued existence of private property to the structure of the state.

Or perhaps you are an anarchist who, also, claims individual privileges forgetting what enables such privileges to exist. The world is still wide, still has unpopulated areas. But for some reason those ultra-individualists who continually make noise about anarchism fail to make the simple step of removing themselves to one of those areas (some few do) and cease bothering us. Individualist anarchism cannot exist in society. In fact nothing which fits the modern concept of anarchism can - it is inherently unstable.

In any case, your criticism against Proudhon applies to you (more than to him, he has ideas for social organization): you have been ranting a lot again "government", but fail to give any alternative.

@Alassius: Marx was no anarchist. Though he proposed the abolition of the state as a goal, it didn't involve trying to abolish hierarchy. Anyway, abolition of the state is also the portion of his though which I find a pipe dream. Private property and a lot of other state-enforced limitations, yes. The state as a form of "piramidal" hierarchy, replaced with a more "horizontal" form of association? No, I don't see it happening.

 

[Traitorfish]

No, it is a synonym for social hierarchy...

No it isn't. It may have connotations of social hierarchy, but that by no means implies that the two are in any way synonymous.

 

[innonimatu]

Oh, stop spoiling my rhetoric.

Very well, social hierarchies are not necessarily governments, but really, looking at the past history of governments, can you find one form which was used and wasn't a social hierarchy?

 

[ParkCungHee]

It wasn't, which is the point.
In many ways the ECW was a trial run for Liberalism.

No it most certainly wasn't. Not to mention the stuff you were referencing wasn't even part of the English Civil War.

 

[Alassius]

@Alassius: Marx was no anarchist. Though he proposed the abolition of the state as a goal, it didn't involve trying to abolish hierarchy. Anyway, abolition of the state is also the portion of his though which I find a pipe dream. Private property and a lot of other state-enforced limitations, yes. The state as a form of "piramidal" hierarchy, replaced with a more "horizontal" form of association? No, I don't see it happening.

He's not anarchist in the sense of the disorder of everyone fighting for himself. He's an anarchist in the sense that he thought everyone could live happily together ever after, orderly and voluntarily, if you abolish things that made people fight with each other. Abolition of the state was not a goal, but the means to remove the support for a hierarchy. And, as you've said, the hierarchy is replaced it with a horizontal form of association. This line of thought, which is not unlike other anarchists', was what Marx had. Whether it's practical is a separate question.

 

[Masada]

Well, actually that is true. Most of the Mongols infamous razing came into affect after the conquest of that Iranian empire (I don't remember their name).

Very simple. The Jin are representative of part of China, but not of China (read: Song) itself.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Very simple. The Jin are representative of part of China, but not of China (read: Song) itself.

As I said in the previous post, I never did say they represented all of China. I just used them because they were the first to come under Genghis' gun.

Just a simple misunderstanding then

 

[FriendlyFire]

:Amused:

People arent meant to live as ants were social creatures, communism cannot work its been proven time and time again. The system allows the most ruthless and brutal to rise to the top and take control.

 

[Abegweit]

I am afraid that I am a libertarian, Abby.

Yes, I suppose you must be. It's pretty hard to score positive economically on that atrocious Political Compass questionnaire if you aren't a pretty hard-core free marketer. Sorry. I don't know how I missed that. I guess I was simply concentrating on that strange claim about Teddy Roosevelt who was the most un-libertarian President to that point in history.

Back to the questionnaire. So many of the questions reflect the lefty bias of the questionnaire designer. Consider this one:

"Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment". Ummm... I'm strongly opposed to both and to the government policies which cause both of them. Why is this some kind of either/or thing? What's more, despite Keynes, the policies which cause inflation (fiat money and fractional banking) have little or nothing to do with the policies that cause unemployment (onerous regulations, certification rules, minimum wage laws, etc). If you force me to choose I suppose I have to say that unemployment is worse. You also know that this answer pushes my economic score to the negative side. There are plenty more examples of the same sort of nonsense.

Here's another: It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society. I strongly agree with that statement. In fact, it's more than simply regrettable; it is absolutely outrageous. You just know that this answer also turns me into a statist according to the questionnaire designer.

Every time I take this test, I score all over the map because the questions are so stupid that I never know how to answer them. I'm consistent on this quiz however. I score 159 out of 160 on, losing a point on question 11.

And what exactly do you think will happen without a government?

State <> government. People have governed themselves perfectly well throughout history without resort to thieves. In fact, it invariably works far better.

The Common Law, for example, was originally private law that the state had nothing to do with at all. It took a nearly thousand years of repeated attacks on the legal system, from the Norman Conquest until well into the twentieth century, before the state finally turned it into the farce it has become.

The word "criminal" is not English. It is French. That's because the concept did not exist in English Law until Dear William imported Roman Law into the country. A criminal is someone who has committed an act against the sovereign and on whom the sovereign decides to enact revenge. Originally, if one man stole from another, the state would confiscate all the property of the thief. In modern democracies, thieves have become pawns who are used as excuses to steal from taxpayers and give to politically powerful groups like police, judges and prison guards.

Here's another question from the Political Compass: "In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation". Wrong and wrong. The purpose of justice is neither punishment nor rehabilitation; it is restitution. As noted, the very notion of "criminal" is statist. In free market law, all malfeasance is covered by tort law. IOW, all law is civil. If I steal from you, then the purpose of justice is to restore what is rightfully yours. That means that everything taken should be returned (or replaced with something of equivalent value) and in addition something more should be given for the victim's trouble. Once the victim has been restored, the matter is closed and both parties can move on with their lives.

The English word is not criminal; it is "outlaw". This refers to someone who refuses to be bound by the law. E.g. , if a court of law has determined that I stole something from you and I then refuse to pay the amend ordered by the court, then I have put myself beyond the law. All property of an outlaw was forfeit and, in fact, his very life ceases to have the protection of the law. These rules made it very rare for someone to actually defy the law.

You will note that statist law has the same rule. If you refuse to abide by the penalty that state judge imposes, men with guns will come after you. If you continue to refuse, they will kill you. There is no special magic to the state; anything that the state can do, the free market can do better. For one thing, free market law de-escalates confrontation and heals. The harm done to the victim is corrected and the victimizer is allowed to move on with his life once he has given back what he took (as best as is possible). The state, in contrast, raises the stakes. The victim gets nothing for what was done to him and the victimizer is turned into a pariah who can never close the matter. Not surprisingly he will frequently return to crime. He cannot get a job because the state creates unemployment and the last person employers are interested in hiring are ex-felons. So what's left for him to do? He steals again which makes to yet more grist for bigger thieves to grab money from taxpayers.

 

[Traitorfish]

People arent meant to live as ants were social creatures, communism cannot work its been proven time and time again. The system allows the most ruthless and brutal to rise to the top and take control.

To what are you referring? Please don't tell me it's explicitly non-communist societies like the USSR, because I really don't need to have to explain all this basic terminology again.

 

[Xanikk999]

According to certain American politicians, a well-regulated mixed market economy IS communism.

Well that's funny because that's exactly what 99% of the world has including the U.S, if not 100%. Politics as usual I suppose.

 

[Seon]

Every time I take this test, I score all over the map because the questions are so stupid that I never know how to answer them. I'm consistent on this quiz however. I score 159 out of 160 on, losing a point on question 11.

While I will not argue against "leftist" bias on that questionaire, do you need to know how to answer to those questions, no matter how stupid you deem they are? Do you need someone to tell you how the world is supposed to be? You answer the questions depending on what you believe the answers are, not because what it will place you on the political scale.

State <> government. People have governed themselves perfectly well throughout history without resort to thieves. In fact, it invariably works far better.

Liiiiiiiiike?

The Common Law, for example, was originally private law that the state had nothing to do with at all. It took a nearly thousand years of repeated attacks on the legal system, from the Norman Conquest until well into the twentieth century, before the state finally turned it into the farce it has become.

[citation required]

What the heck does a "Private" law mean?

Is it an "Understood" law by the leaders of the community?

Is it an "Understood" law by the victims and the criminal?

The word "criminal" is not English. It is French. That's because the concept did not exist in English Law until Dear William imported Roman Law into the country. A criminal is someone who has committed an act against the sovereign and on whom the sovereign decides to enact revenge. Originally, if one man stole from another, the state would confiscate all the property of the thief. In modern democracies, thieves have become pawns who are used as excuses to steal from taxpayers and give to politically powerful groups like police, judges and prison guards.

Oh right, since the idea of the current law enforcement goes against a very ancient principle/what you deem to be "common sense", we should do away with police and judges.

And originally the "state" will confiscate the propety of the thief? Are you promoting some kind of "state" here?

Here's another question from the Political Compass: "In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation". Wrong and wrong. The purpose of justice is neither punishment nor rehabilitation; it is restitution. As noted, the very notion of "criminal" is statist. In free market law, all malfeasance is covered by tort law. IOW, all law is civil. If I steal from you, then the purpose of justice is to restore what is rightfully yours. That means that everything taken should be returned (or replaced with something of equivalent value) and in addition something more should be given for the victim's trouble. Once the victim has been restored, the matter is closed and both parties can move on with their lives.

I dunnow, can the murderer restore a person's life? And how would you catch said thief without a police? And wouldn't necessity of having a neutral court bring about some form of government that impose order on the masses? Or do you suggest we privatize law enforcement too? Oh hey look! That guy's getting mugged! Oh, but he obviously doesn't have any money. Oh well, nothing to be done, nothing to see.

The English word is not criminal; it is "outlaw". This refers to someone who refuses to be bound by the law. E.g. , if a court of law has determined that I stole something from you and I then refuse to pay the amend ordered by the court, then I have put myself beyond the law. All property of an outlaw was forfeit and, in fact, his very life ceases to have the protection of the law. These rules made it very rare for someone to actually defy the law.

As intended.

You will note that statist law has the same rule. If you refuse to abide by the penalty that state judge imposes, men with guns will come after you. If you continue to refuse, they will kill you. There is no special magic to the state; anything that the state can do, the free market can do better. For one thing, free market law de-escalates confrontation and heals. The harm done to the victim is corrected and the victimizer is allowed to move on with his life once he has given back what he took (as best as is possible). The state, in contrast, raises the stakes. The victim gets nothing for what was done to him and the victimizer is turned into a pariah who can never close the matter. Not surprisingly he will frequently return to crime. He cannot get a job because the state creates unemployment and the last person employers are interested in hiring are ex-felons. So what's left for him to do? He steals again which makes to yet more grist for bigger thieves to grab money from taxpayers.

Deescalates confrontation and heals, right. What if one party decides that penalty for stealing should be summary execution, and others agree? Would that be made the "Common Law?" Who will keep track of this "Common Law?"

What if the victim never wishes to forgive the victimizer? What if the crime was rape? What would be the punishment for rape?

And don't you dare insinuate that a 1000 year law can be put into use again, because it can't.

Thinking on the other side of the coin, what if the said thief was also the strongest, the meanest, the fastest man or woman this side of Mississipi who came to the court armed to the teeth? What if he was a particularly charismatic human, who had a large following of men and women also armed to the teeth?. In fact, while we are on the same topic, what can an anarchy do to stop highly motivated, highly organized, highly trained group of soldiers?