Successful Communism

[Love]

An example on a successful communism is the smurfs community.

 

[Tee Kay]

An example on a successful communism is the smurfs community.

A society where there are 2 females for 30+ males is not a successful society.

 

[Love]

Damn, I completely forgot that little detail.

 

[Traitorfish]

Its not just western government types. Eastern government types were even more centered and top-down. Many of the eastern countries where monarchies until recently(some still are). That's about as top-down as you can get.

Almost every single government type of any large entity(like a country) is top-down in nature.

The point of a central government is to provide supreme authority and have power to back it up. A decentralized government is not going to be as powerful nor have the power as a central government. Your also going to have trouble with states not obeying the central government, which in the past has caused enormous amounts of trouble.

Well, my use of "Western" was a little patronising, and for that I apologise.

However, you still do not seem to have grasped my point; you merely continue to assert that society is necessarily top-down, hierarchical and authoritarian. Even your example of decentralised government- federal statism- doesn't avert this, it merely restructures it.
What libertarianism collectivism proposes is bottom-up government, a form of governance which stems from the individual and works upwards; universal self-government, in essence. "Here the people command, and the government obeys", to paraphrase the Zapatistas. It's an ideology which holds democracy to be something more than a grand game of "Pick Your Tyrant", which you seem to advocate.

 

[Yeekim]

What libertarianism collectivism proposes is bottom-up government, a form of governance which stems from the individual and works upwards; universal self-government, in essence. "Here the people command, and the government obeys", to paraphrase the Zapatistas. It's an ideology which holds democracy to be something more than a grand game of "Pick Your Tyrant", which you seem to advocate.

This government stops being "bottom-up" and becomes "top-down" the moment there is one dissenter among "the people".

 

[Whomp]

Leadership, the super normal brain and presumption of cradle to grave safety.

Each of these seem untenable under a purely socialist system.

For those with greater skills without significantly greater rewards it holds no carrot at the end of the stick. Whereas, capitalism reinforces this with simplicity and force. Both business success and failure are quite exact in capitalism.

It's already a daunting challenge for Europe's leadership to maintain "The Europe that protects".

 

[Traitorfish]

This government stops being "bottom-up" and becomes "top-down" the moment there is one dissenter among "the people".

I disagree, although, given the sparsity of your own claim, I'm not entirely sure how I should go about detailing my position. Perhaps you could elaborate?

For those with greater skills without significantly greater rewards it holds no carrot at the end of the stick. Whereas, capitalism reinforces this with simplicity and force. Both business success and failure are quite exact in capitalism.

That assumes that rational behaviour is always aggressively self-interested, and that human beings are not capable of altruistic behaviour. Furthermore, it makes the assumption that collectivism is necessarily contrary to self-interest, which most collectivists would argue is not true for the majority of the human race, and that includes those of exceptional skill or ability. That it does not offer the largest pay-cheque to the professional class is not, in itself, a contradiction of this.

 

[Archbob]

Well, my use of "Western" was a little patronising, and for that I apologise.

However, you still do not seem to have grasped my point; you merely continue to assert that society is necessarily top-down, hierarchical and authoritarian. Even your example of decentralised government- federal statism- doesn't avert this, it merely restructures it.
What libertarianism collectivism proposes is bottom-up government, a form of governance which stems from the individual and works upwards; universal self-government, in essence. "Here the people command, and the government obeys", to paraphrase the Zapatistas. It's an ideology which holds democracy to be something more than a grand game of "Pick Your Tyrant", which you seem to advocate.

However, I can't recall any government in history that has ever worked like this on a large scale.

Universal self-government does not work because people want different things. It is incredibly inefficient and leads to problems because people act as individuals and not as a whole. Each individual will have different rules and guidelines.

Its a great notion that would work if all people were entirely benevolent. However, that is simply not going to pan out in reality.

 

[Traitorfish]

However, I can't recall any government in history that has ever worked like this on a large scale.

And as late as 1770, there had been no large-scale liberal parliamentary democracies. The future is not simply the past in HD.

Universal self-government does not work because people want different things. It is incredibly inefficient and leads to problems because people act as individuals and not as a whole. Each individual will have different rules and guidelines.

Which is true of any society, and why society demands compromise. All libertarian collectivism indeed, any libertarian ideology suggests is that these compromise be voluntary, rather than enforced by an authoritarian state. Anarchy does not reject government, but imposed government.

Its a great notion that would work if all people were entirely benevolent. However, that is simply not going to pan out in reality.

Why does it demand universal benevolence any more than parliamentary democracy does? It's just a natural extension of the same principles. Granted, the mechanics demand a little more fine tuning, due to the lack of a Beloved Leader to stop us peons doing something silly, but it possesses no flaw that cannot be exactly asserted of democracy of any variety. It is, after all, the logical extension of the same principles.

 

[Yeekim]

I disagree, although, given the sparsity of your own claim, I'm not entirely sure how I should go about detailing my position. Perhaps you could elaborate?

All libertarian collectivism indeed, any libertarian ideology suggests is that these compromise be voluntary, rather than enforced by an authoritarian state.

What if one (or both) parties do not want to compromise?

 

[Traitorfish]

What if one (or both) parties do not want to compromise?

That depends on the nature of the parties, the nature of the issue and the level of disturbance it causes. Typically, I would imagine, an arbitrator of some variety would be called upon, the nature of this arbitration, again, depending on the scenario in question.

Honestly, libertarian socialism isn't really as radical as all that. A lot of the politics are simply the full realisation of what we pay lip service to know, either by taking them to their natural conclusion, or, in many cases, simply realise the conclusions that we have already reached.

 

[Yeekim]

That depends on the nature of the parties, the nature of the issue and the level of disturbance it causes. Typically, I would imagine, an arbitrator of some variety would be called upon, the nature of this arbitration, again, depending on the scenario in question.

Honestly, libertarian socialism isn't really as radical as all that. A lot of the politics are simply the full realisation of what we pay lip service to know, either by taking them to their natural conclusion, or, in many cases, simply realise the conclusions that we have already reached.

No, you misunderstood me. I did not say "what if they don't manage to reach a compromise". I said "what if they don't WANT to compromise?"

 

[Traitorfish]

No, you misunderstood me. I did not say "what if they don't manage to reach a compromise". I said "what if they don't WANT to compromise?"

Then, again, that depends on the particular scenario. It may demand external intervention, it may simply demand that they live and let live. For example, if two municipalities refused to agree on the construction of some shared facility, then the facility would remain unbuilt. If they could not agree on the operation of an existing shared facility, then the involvement of the next level of authority, having had sufficient authority delegated to it by whatever collection of entities it bears responsibility for in accordance with democratic subsidiaritarian principles, would intervene and override both entities.
Of course, that naturally raises the question as to what happens if neither municipality consents to intervention, which essentially suggests that they withdraw from the arrangement by which the "county", we'll call it, has the authority to intervene, in which case they become autonomous, thus loosing the benefits of higher-level collectivism, and are forced to figure the issue out on their own. If they cannot, then, well, that's their problem. To the extent that it interferes with no-one outside of those municipalities, or that nobody within the municipalities suffers unduly, it is nobody else's business.

 

[aelf]

That's just like say "Hey lets just defeat evil." A more realistic goal would be to keep exploitation at an feasible level. Workers are never going to earn as much as the people they work for. That's just a fact that eventually you'll have to come to realize. Fair pay is not evenly splitting profits, that will never happen. But you have to pay workers a wage that their willing to work at.

No one simply said "let's just defeat evil". I think how to reduce exploitation is pretty clear - increase the common ownership of property and arrange the relations of production such that it is more communal and democratic. Your suggestion of "let's just defeat evil", on the other hand, lacks the crucial details on what can be done to do so.

Communism essentially eliminates much of the reason people start enterprises and work so hard to innovate new things. Without vast amounts of personal profit, people are just less motivated.

I take it that you didn't watch the video I posted?

I don't see where Alassius or anyone else has suggested this. As I understand it, M. believed it will happen the other way round; first industrial revolution would bring about abundance and workers' revolution would follow.

I'm curious as to why you say this with such conviction. As I understand it, plenty of Marx's writings do not suggest that he's waiting for a Second Coming or something. In fact it's quite the opposite. One of easiest ways to see this is from the Theses on Feuerbach, which I quote: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."

You sidestepped the question by creating a tired and poor analogy. We can demonstrate that Weimar Republic or Jacobin society are not yardsticks for democracy, because there is a large number of different, better, more successful examples of democracy that one can point to. The same can not be said about Marxism - there are no such examples. Of course, you have your right to believe that there is a different path (and you may be even correct - in theory ), however it seems you actually have no idea what it looks like. I mean no offense here - if you had, you'd probably make yourself a place in history

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Surely this is common sense. The point is taking the Soviet Union as somehow a yardstick for communist society just because there are not many examples is as arbitrary as taking the two examples I named as yardsticks for democracy.

Everyone can say that USSR is a poor and failed example, what is lacking is knowledge of how to actually create a successful Marxist society while avoiding these same pitfalls.

But you're asking for the impossible. There isn't a roadmap to democracy either, if you've noticed. The only thing that is possible is to do your best and avoid past mistakes.

You're not suggesting that certain peoples give up all attempts to democratise because some attempts have gone wrong, are you?

I advise you back out from this argument while you can still retain some dignity. You are quite clearly outclassed.

Declaring victory already?

The partisanship here is palpable.

 

[MrGoldfinger]

True communism is impossible - it is only a hypothesis and a sweet dream of some dreamers.

 

[GhostWriter16]

True communism is impossible - it is only a hypothesis and a sweet dream of some dreamers.

True dat!

 

[kosiosko 1]

True communism is impossible - it is only a hypothesis and a sweet dream of some dreamers.

true but can not the shinning beacon of demorcray and capitalism ... The USA, also be said to be a complete failure... just look at domms posts, he's just so passionate about its failures, it just dosn't live up to the sweet dreams of dreamers

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

there are two more problems: how you can achieve the utopia without making it like the Soviet Union

First, no one would say the USSR was a utopia, or that it was communism.

Second, I don't think something "turning out like the USSR" is necessarily a bad thing. I would rather have lived in the Soviet Union thirty years ago than China even today. But if USSR is the yardstick to be held up against, I am nonetheless confident that we could build a much greater society than what existed there.

 

[civ_king]

First, no one would say the USSR was a utopia, or that it was communism.

Second, I don't think something "turning out like the USSR" is necessarily a bad thing. I would rather have lived in the Soviet Union thirty years ago than China even today. But if USSR is the yardstick to be held up against, I am nonetheless confident that we could build a much greater society than what existed there.

USSR or under the Tsar?

 

[W|M]

Definetly USSR