What is communism ?

[Alassius]

First, you do not know how either of us would vote, and there is nothing in what has been said which could even hint at an answer to that, so you are reading what you want to read.

Second, why would I be voting for a dictator?

Third, why is this something "our" system must "survive?" Civver's views and my own are quite different, you know. Not that I expect you to understand the difference, because all socialism is Stalinism to you.

You've defended Lenin for plenty of times before, haven't you? Using exactly the reason Civver gave?

My point is that if your version of socialism doesn't defend itself against dictatorship, it will more likely than not become Stalinism, because (first-gen) dictators are smart, charismatic, convincing, generally well-respected during their early years, have a very strong motivation to win power, and are not afraid to use underhanded tactics. Given a fair competition, there is a very good chance that a dictator will be elected. Just because you claim your socialism is democratic doesn't mean it is immune to mutations once the dictator get to power.

 

[civver_764]

It's possible to defend someone within the context of the times and not actually support them.

 

[Alassius]

It's possible to defend someone within the context of the times and not actually support them.

True, but you also said "f I was a worker living under the Czar yeah I probably would have supported the Bolsheviks." That's what counts. If things somehow become as bad as it was under the Czar, you would vote for Lenin again, no?

 

[civver_764]

Only because my life quality would have improved. The Soviet Union was the lesser of two evils for certain.

 

[Traitorfish]

There is a difference between "not all radicals pursue centralisation" and "no radicals pursue centralisation". For your system to work, it must not fail because of the radicals who do pursue it. Otherwise, you cannot "extend [it] to all humans", and you are confined to small scale collectives where you can gather like minded people together. Which is not a bad thing per se, but I suspect you'll not be satisfied with that.

That sort of assumes that any given movement towards socialism necessarily involves a constant, permanent and pre-determined quota of militant revolutionary Leninists, which is not necessarily going to be the case.

This is what I mean. Some people, like civver or Cheezy, are going to vote for the strong dictator because "there was just a lot of problems ... to deal with." Would your system survive this?

Well, given that a fully realised system of libertarian socialism simply wouldn't be capable of supporting a centralised dictatorship, I'm not sure it's much of a problem. The Bolshevik dictatorship emerged at a very particular time in Russian history, one that was, in a large part, the product of its underdeveloped society. I don't see it being replicated in Western Europe.

The bolded part is the crux of matter. By "disallowing", do you mean that you have a system to forbid people from being selfish, by for example punishing them? Or do you mean that when everyone adopts your ideology, nobody would even think about being selfish? Or is it that your theory does not consider the question at all?

Bit of both- I certainly imagined that, robbed off a permissive social context, some of the more mundane tyrannies of capitalist society would vanish, but I'm not suggesting that everyone will become a perfect little angel. Some people will always be arseholes, and you'll have to deal with them however you can, whether that means social exclusion or a quick trip to dangle-town.
Why? How does your system deal with this?

"Bottom-up delegation" is hardly more complex than "smash the state, and we'll all be fine". What if people at the bottom disagree with each other? Suppose half the population are lazy and do not want to work, how do you "demand" them to participate? What does your "coordination" involve when some people don't listen to you?

The first, they discuss it, like adults. The second, I let them starve to death. The third? Well, that depends on the circumstances. Maybe they ignore everyone else, maybe we find a more suitable compromise.

(Also, isn't it fascinating how people say things like "adopt your ideology" in such an accusatory manner? As if the notion of a universally-accepted system of government- like, oh, I don't know, liberal democracy- was somehow offensive or innately despotic? )

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I voted other: Whatever you want it to be. It's just a word.

 

[Alassius]

Only because my life quality would have improved. The Soviet Union was the lesser of two evils for certain.

The millions who died of starvation in Ukraine would beg to differ. And even if the Soviet Union was the lesser evil, it doesn't mean there wasn't a better choice, like a liberal democracy. In any case, you've demonstrated that some people are willing to support dictatorship, if the dictators can somehow manage to convince you that they are better than the alternatives, by for example arguing that a strong leadership is required to overcome any difficulties you are facing.

That sort of assumes that any given movement towards socialism necessarily involves a constant, permanent and pre-determined quota of militant revolutionary Leninists, which is not necessarily going to be the case.

Yes, the assumption is that people don't magically become saints. It's safer than to assume people do. I must stress again that "something does not necessarily happen" is not the same as "something will not happen". The former is not good enough. If it happens, you get a hellhole like the Soviet Union again, and millions of lives would be unnecessarily lost.

Well, given that a fully realised system of libertarian socialism simply wouldn't be capable of supporting a centralised dictatorship, I'm not sure it's much of a problem. The Bolshevik dictatorship emerged at a very particular time in Russian history, one that was, in a large part, the product of its underdeveloped society. I don't see it being replicated in Western Europe.

Again, how do you mean by that? Do you mean a dictator-to-be is somehow not allowed to accumulate power? How?

The reason you won't see bolshevism in Western Europe has more to do with people knowing that bolshevism is awful than with them being richer. For the same reason, people also know that anarchism doesn't work, which is why you probably won't see democratic socialism either.

Bit of both- I certainly imagined that, robbed off a permissive social context, some of the more mundane tyrannies of capitalist society would vanish, but I'm not suggesting that everyone will become a perfect little angel. Some people will always be arseholes, and you'll have to deal with them however you can, whether that means social exclusion or a quick trip to dangle-town.
Why? How does your system deal with this?

The first, they discuss it, like adults. The second, I let them starve to death. The third? Well, that depends on the circumstances. Maybe they ignore everyone else, maybe we find a more suitable compromise.

So, you assume that people would magically become saints once certain conditions are met. If they don't, you punish them harshly. How exactly is that different from Stalinism? The manner you talk about starving to death as if it were statistics is very telling. Cheezy did the same. I suspect if either of you were in Stalin's shoes you wouldn't see the world very differently.

(Also, isn't it fascinating how people say things like "adopt your ideology" in such an accusatory manner? As if the notion of a universally-accepted system of government- like, oh, I don't know, liberal democracy- was somehow offensive or innately despotic? )

Because telling people to adopt your ideology is evil. I don't get to tell you to adopt my ideology. All I can do is to tell you what my ideology is, and why I think your ideology is wrong. Whether you take my ideology or stick with yours is entirely up to you. I cannot force you to accept my ideology. In a liberal democracy you are not forbidden from keeping your ideology. But under Marxism my ideology cannot be tolerated. I would be told to either give up my ideology, or, as you said, I'll be left to starve to death. Telling people to adopt your ideology is, indeed, innately despotic.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, the assumption is that people don't magically become saints. It's safer than to assume people do. I must stress again that "something does not necessarily happen" is not the same as "something will not happen". The former is not good enough. If it happens, you get a hellhole like the Soviet Union again, and millions of lives would be unnecessarily lost.

What does this have to do with anything I've said?

Again, how do you mean by that? Do you mean a dictator-to-be is somehow not allowed to accumulate power? How?

Because a centralised dictatorship must seize existing apparatus, or be constructed from scratch. The former is impossible in a system of libertarian collectivism- there is simply no apparatus of sufficient strength- and the latter is a threat to any society, and is essentially external.

The reason you won't see bolshevism in Western Europe has more to do with people knowing that bolshevism is awful than with them being richer. For the same reason, people also know that anarchism doesn't work, which is why you probably won't see democratic socialism either.

...What on Earth has Bolshevism got to do with anything?

So, you assume that people would magically become saints once certain conditions are met. If they don't, you punish them harshly. How exactly is that different from Stalinism? The manner you talk about starving to death as if it were statistics is very telling. Cheezy did the same. I suspect if either of you were in Stalin's shoes you wouldn't see the world very differently.

What I said was that, yes, I expect that a developed socialist society would involve rather less wrong-doing than capitalist one, but that wrong-doing would exist, and that, as in any society, a collective response would be necessary. I am not at all sure why this is shocking- is this in any way a unique proposal?

(Also, is there a Godwin-equivalent for Reductio ad Stalinum? Godwinski, maybe? )

Because telling people to adopt your ideology is evil. I don't get to tell you to adopt my ideology. All I can do is to tell you what my ideology is, and why I think your ideology is wrong. Whether you take my ideology or stick with yours is entirely up to you. I cannot force you to accept my ideology. In a liberal democracy you are not forbidden from keeping your ideology. But under Marxism my ideology cannot be tolerated. I would be told to either give up my ideology, or, as you said, I'll be left to starve to death. Telling people to adopt your ideology is, indeed, innately despotic.

I, er, I didn't plan on it? I really think that you may have me confused with somebody else.

 

[Alassius]

What does this have to do with anything I've said?

Your argument was that your socialist movement does not necessarily involve "a constant, permanent and pre-determined quota of militant revolutionary Leninists". You probably won't get a constant quota, but unless they somehow all become saints, I doubt you can get away with a number that doesn't affect the politics in your society. You don't need a lot of them to screw up the system. All you need is a handful that are capable of making enough people following them.

Because a centralised dictatorship must seize existing apparatus, or be constructed from scratch. The former is impossible in a system of libertarian collectivism- there is simply no apparatus of sufficient strength- and the latter is a threat to any society, and is essentially external.

Indeed, it is good that you recognise dictatorship can be constructed from scratch. So what is your defence against that? Neighbourhood watch? Police? Prisons? The difference between an anarchy and any society is that any society actually does have a way of dealing with spontaneous coercion.

...What on Earth has Bolshevism got to do with anything?

You were saying that bolshevism is caused by Russia being poor when the revolution started. I don't agree. I think bolshevism happened because there weren't guards in Marxism against dictatorship. Western Europe has a strong liberal tradition, and institutions that came as the result of that tradition, which serve as that guard. Marx's problem was that he thought these institutions were hypocritical because they protected only bourgeoisie benefits, so he sought to undermine them. But without those guards, Russia got something that's much worse than bourgeoisie exploitation. Your society doesn't have those guards either.

What I said was that, yes, I expect that a developed socialist society would involve rather less wrong-doing than capitalist one, but that wrong-doing would exist, and that, as in any society, a collective response would be necessary. I am not at all sure why this is shocking- is this in any way a unique proposal?

See, now you've recognised the need for "a collective response" in a system of supposed "voluntary cooperation and collective self-management". May I ask who is going to direct that collective response?

(Also, is there a Godwin-equivalent for Reductio ad Stalinum? Godwinski, maybe? )

Is there a name for the fallacy where you can't refute me, so you try to find some other fallacy and try to make me sound I'd fallen for that, without actually understanding what that fallacy is about?

I, er, I didn't plan on it? I really think that you may have me confused with somebody else.

No, I mean you. You are the one who said you want to let half the population starved to death. Perhaps you should be shocked yourself that you would have said that?

 

[Traitorfish]

You were demanding "the involvement of the entire capable population", then you were perfectly happy with letting half of the population starve because they are lazy. If being lazy is enough to warrant death, what is it that you are demanding if not angels?

Laziness doesn't warrant death, and I never suggested it did. Merely that those unwilling to work can not and should not expect others to support them; are you suggesting otherwise?

Indeed, it is good that you recognise dictatorship can be constructed from scratch. So what is your defence against that? Neighbourhood watch? Police? Prisons? The difference between an anarchy and any society is that any society actually does have a way of dealing with spontaneous coercion.

What does anarchy lack, exactly, that centralist democracy possesses? Let's not forget that centralist, nominally-liberal democracies have been usurped by despotic forces in the past, through means legal and illegal, and all the easier for the concentration of power.

You were saying that bolshevism is caused by Russia being poor when the revolution started. I don't agree. I think bolshevism happened because there weren't guards in Marxism against dictatorship. Western Europe has a strong liberal tradition, and institutions that came as the result of that tradition, which serve as that guard. Marx's problem was that he thought these institutions were hypocritical because they protected only bourgeoisie benefits, so he sought to undermine them. But without those guards, Russia got something that's much worse than bourgeoisie exploitation. Your society doesn't have those guards either.

I said that the particular circumstances of the October Revolution were unique, and so not directly applicable to contemporary Western society. My point was that "Cheezy would vote for Lenin in 1918" is not, in itself, much of an argument.

See, now you've recognised the need for "a collective response" in a system of supposed "voluntary cooperation and collective self-management". May I ask who is going to direct that collective response?

In what sense? The immediate, or the general? I imagine that the laws themselves would be established democratically, but, obviously, there would have to be some sort institutions capable of enforcing them for the protection of the community.
I honestly don't have these things carved in stone. I'm proposing principals, not a constitution.

Is there a name for the fallacy where you can't refute me, so you try to find some other fallacy and try to make me sound I'd fallen for that, without actually understanding what that fallacy is about?

Is there a name for people who take themselves too damn seriously?

No, I mean you. You are the one who said you want to let half the population starved to death. Perhaps you should be shocked yourself that you would have said that?

I'm not sure how refusing to support wilful parasites can be equated with ideological indoctrination. It seems like a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly.

 

[Alassius]

Laziness doesn't warrant death, and I never suggested it did. Merely that those unwilling to work can not and should not expect others to support them; are you suggesting otherwise?

First of all, it's very refreshing to hear an argument usually associated with cold blooded tories coming from a leftie

Sane liberals from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman all supported a certain level of social welfare. Letting people die because they are lazy is for one thing cruel, for another it's way too easy a weapon for the dictators. It's simply wrong.

What does anarchy lack, exactly, that centralist democracy possesses? Let's not forget that centralist, nominally-liberal democracies have been usurped by despotic forces in the past, through means legal and illegal, and all the easier for the concentration of power.

Er, like, a justice system?

Nominally liberal democracies have been usurped: that is because they were nominally liberal and didn't really have the proper guards. Truly liberal democracies, like Britain or America, have never been in serious danger. Both Bush and Blair tried to strengthen central power. Look at the backlash they've got.

I said that the particular circumstances of the October Revolution were unique, and so not directly applicable to contemporary Western society. My point was that "Cheezy would vote for Lenin in 1918" is not, in itself, much of an argument.

And I'm saying that if by "particular circumstances" you mean being poor, I don't agree that was the cause. I think the lack of liberal institutions was the cause. And I think if you remove those institutions (as Marx intended), Western Europe would fall into exactly the same catastrophe. So "Cheezy would vote for Lenin in 1918" is very much relevant given a scenario where someone manages to break those institutions. Not that it would be easy.

In what sense? The immediate, or the general? I imagine that the laws themselves would be established democratically, but, obviously, there would have to be some sort institutions capable of enforcing them for the protection of the community.
I honestly don't have these things carved in stone. I'm proposing principals, not a constitution.

So now you need laws in your anarchy. Does your anarchy also need a police force to enforce laws? Courts to decide who breaks the law? Prisons to put the arseholes in? How about an assembly to draft laws? Or maybe even a strong army to defend your country from invading imperialist arseholes?

Is there a name for people who take themselves too damn seriously?

Is there a name for when you cannot reason against an argument, you try instead to assault the personality of the person who made that argument?

I'm not sure how refusing to support wilful parasites can be equated with ideological indoctrination. It seems like a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly.

The point is that you have shown you are happy with an atrocity if you think it serves them right. And being lazy is a very, very low bar. If you do not have a moral bound that makes you cringe at the idea that people should die simply for being lazy, chances are you will be capable of more horrible things when you face people who fiercely attack you. And if you do become a General Secretary, I'll bet that after a while, you'd start looking at everyone who disagrees with you as mortal enemies, because of the sheer pressure of the job. It happened to many dictators. At that point, for other people, it is in practice either adopt your ideology, or die.

 

[Traitorfish]

First of all, it's very refreshing to hear an argument usually associated with cold blooded tories coming from a leftie

Sane liberals from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman all supported a certain level of social welfare. Letting people die because they are lazy is for one thing cruel, for another it's way too easy a weapon for the dictators. It's simply wrong.

I honestly don't see what welfare has to do with anything; we're talking about those who are fully capable of contributing and refuse to, not those who are, for whatever reason, unable to contribute at this time. Neither "to each according to his contribution" or "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", the creeds of socialism and communism, respectively, allow for parasitism. That is, in fact, why we oppose capitalism.

Er, like, a justice system?

Nominally liberal democracies have been usurped: that is because they were nominally liberal and didn't really have the proper guards. Truly liberal democracies, like Britain or America, have never been in serious danger. Both Bush and Blair tried to strengthen central power. Look at the backlash they've got.

So you acknowledge that it is possible to organise a society without over-centralising power? What, then, is your complaint?

And I'm saying that if by "particular circumstances" you mean being poor, I don't agree that was the cause. I think the lack of liberal institutions was the cause. And I think if you remove those institutions (as Marx intended), Western Europe would fall into exactly the same catastrophe. So "Cheezy would vote for Lenin in 1918" is very much relevant given a scenario where someone manages to break those institutions. Not that it would be easy.

I am not proposing overnight revolution, but gradual reform. As I've said elsewhere on the forum, I am a Market Socialist and a Syndicalist, meaning that I favour the gradually over-turning of capitalism through the collectivisation of production and the democratisation of economic life. All this "delegation" stuff is what you do afterwards.

So now you need laws in your anarchy. Does your anarchy also need a police force to enforce laws? Courts to decide who breaks the law? Prisons to put the arseholes in? How about an assembly to draft laws? Or maybe even a strong army to defend your country from invading imperialist arseholes?

I am not of the opinion that anarchy is something to attempt tomorrow- the two things Anarchist Catalonia demonstrated are that Anarchy is entirely feasible, but that we are not yet ready for it.
As for the rest, well, yes, those are all fine and dandy, at least in their broadest sense. I don't see why that would not be the case. I'm a collectivist, after all, not an egoist; the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and all that.

Is there a name for when you cannot reason against an argument, you try instead to assault the personality of the person who made that argument?

And what argument would that be?

The point is that you have shown you are happy with an atrocity if you think it serves them right. And being lazy is a very, very low bar. If you do not have a moral bound that makes you cringe at the idea that people should die simply for being lazy, chances are you will be capable of more horrible things when you face people who fiercely attack you. And if you do become a General Secretary, I'll bet that after a while, you'd start looking at everyone who disagrees with you as mortal enemies, because of the sheer pressure of the job. It happened to many dictators. At that point, for other people, it is in practice either adopt your ideology, or die.

I am not sure how refusing to give all my money to people who cannot be bothered to contribute to society is an "atrocity". If they die, it is because they made no effort not to die, and, to be quite frank, I don't consider myself responsible for someone who is so bloody stupid that he sits on his couch and starves to death rather than putting in a day's work.
People aren't children, they can and should look after themselves; that is, in fact, the core of my entire position.

 

[Alassius]

I honestly don't see what welfare has to do with anything; we're talking about those who are fully capable of contributing and refuse to, not those who are, for whatever reason, unable to contribute at this time. Neither "to each according to his contribution" or "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", the creeds of socialism and communism, respectively, allow for parasitism. That is, in fact, why we oppose capitalism.

That just shows how empty Marxist slogans is. Essentially you are describing forced labour on penalty of starvation.

Welfare is about to provide without demanding contribution, so we can keep disabled people and elderly alive without them having to work. Suppose I have migraine, or any other conditions you can't really tell if I have it or now, and unable to work. What is my contribution? Am I allowed a stipend without contributing? Suppose I'm an arsehole and claim that I have migraine, but I don't actually have it. Should I be given an allowance? Suppose a million people are arseholes, and claim that they are incapacitated when they are not, do they deserve something?

Most importantly, who do you rely on to judge if I should be given benefits or not? On that matter, how do you measure contribution? Do you measure it by how much time I show up at work? Suppose I'm an arsehole who shows at work but doesn't do anything useful? Suppose I only do one hour's useful work? Do I get the same as Boxer who works the same hours but much harder than me? Suppose I say I'm well suited for that particular office job with no manual work, low pressure, and air-conditioning. Should I get it? If I get it, what would my contribution be compared to Boxer the workhorse?

Don't think these are just rhetorics. Negligence was an actual problem that caused stagnation of Soviet economies. Can you solve it? Are you smarter than Soviet commissars?

So you acknowledge that it is possible to organise a society without over-centralising power? What, then, is your complaint?

A liberal democracy has a limited government. The gevernment is necessary for certain roles. But it cannot have unchecked power. Those limitations, such as freedom of speech, or habeas corpus, or protection of private property from expropriation, are the institutions that make sure the government does not become an over-centralised power. What are your methods to ensure that? Simply hoping that people would believe in your ideology and therefore does not try to usurp power?

I am not proposing overnight revolution, but gradual reform. As I've said elsewhere on the forum, I am a Market Socialist and a Syndicalist, meaning that I favour the gradually over-turning of capitalism through the collectivisation of production and the democratisation of economic life. All this "delegation" stuff is what you do afterwards.

Revolution or not, in the end you are aiming for a system without liberal institutions, right?

I am not of the opinion that anarchy is something to attempt tomorrow- the two things Anarchist Catalonia demonstrated are that Anarchy is entirely feasible, but that we are not yet ready for it.
As for the rest, well, yes, those are all fine and dandy, at least in their broadest sense. I don't see why that would not be the case. I'm a collectivist, after all, not an egoist; the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and all that.

Why can't you attempt anarchy tomorrow? Is it because people haven't all become saints who won't covet power yet? When will you be ready?

I am not sure how refusing to give all my money to people who cannot be bothered to contribute to society is an "atrocity". If they die, it is because they made no effort not to die, and, to be quite frank, I don't consider myself responsible for someone who is so bloody stupid that he sits on his couch and starves to death rather than putting in a day's work.
People aren't children, they can and should look after themselves; that is, in fact, the core of my entire position.

But how? Suppose I want to work on a public farm, but I want to keep what I produce for myself and my family. Am I allowed to do that? Or would that be too selfish that you would disallow me to work on the said farm? And if I'm disallowed to use public resources, how am I supposed to look after myself, if I don't have access to any means of production?

 

[Lone Wolf]

The pinkos in that thread sicken me. Their fluffy romanticism is incompatible with the spirit of hatred towards the evil capitalists. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. If the perspective of standing submerged in the blood of the oppressors up to your ears disgusts you, go on and join the oppressive bourgeoise in abusing the exploited peoples of the world. It'd be much more honest, then spewing all that fluffy "anti-violence" nonsense that is dangerously subversive to proper revolutionary process. Don't shy away from blood and dirt. Great wars always have great victims.

 

[Traitorfish]

That just shows how empty Marxist slogans is. Essentially you are describing forced labour on penalty of starvation.

Pardon? Do you think we could perhaps go over this hypothetical again, because I think we may be losing each other.

You asked what I would do if half the population of the country, the assumption being that they are of sound body and mind, refused to work. I replied that I would do nothing at all; they have every right to refuse to work. As long as they don't expect the rest of society to indulge them in some sort of self-appointed aristocracy, which be exploitative, then it is their choice, and their choice alone. I am not an authoritarian.

Why, exactly, is this the Stalinist atrocity that you seem to believe it is?

Welfare is about to provide without demanding contribution, so we can keep disabled people and elderly alive without them having to work. Suppose I have migraine, or any other conditions you can't really tell if I have it or now, and unable to work. What is my contribution? Am I allowed a stipend without contributing? Suppose I'm an arsehole and claim that I have migraine, but I don't actually have it. Should I be given an allowance? Suppose a million people are arseholes, and claim that they are incapacitated when they are not, do they deserve something?

Most importantly, who do you rely on to judge if I should be given benefits or not? On that matter, how do you measure contribution? Do you measure it by how much time I show up at work? Suppose I'm an arsehole who shows at work but doesn't do anything useful? Suppose I only do one hour's useful work? Do I get the same as Boxer who works the same hours but much harder than me? Suppose I say I'm well suited for that particular office job with no manual work, low pressure, and air-conditioning. Should I get it? If I get it, what would my contribution be compared to Boxer the workhorse?

Don't think these are just rhetorics. Negligence was an actual problem that caused stagnation of Soviet economies. Can you solve it? Are you smarter than Soviet commissars?

These question pertains to the idea of public welfare itself, not to Libertarian Socialism in particular. I'm not sure why you felt it was necessary to address it towards me, and not, say, Clement Atlee.

A liberal democracy has a limited government. The gevernment is necessary for certain roles. But it cannot have unchecked power. Those limitations, such as freedom of speech, or habeas corpus, or protection of private property from expropriation, are the institutions that make sure the government does not become an over-centralised power. What are your methods to ensure that? Simply hoping that people would believe in your ideology and therefore does not try to usurp power?

Why do you think think that constitutionalism demands a centralised state? It seems a principle with fairly wide application.

Revolution or not, in the end you are aiming for a system without liberal institutions, right?

That depends entirely on what you mean by "liberal institutions".

Why can't you attempt anarchy tomorrow? Is it because people haven't all become saints who won't covet power yet? When will you be ready?

For the first, I would've thought it was rather self-evident. That, at least, should not be a point that we disagree on.
As for the second, I imagine a gradual transition, so there will never be any single point at which "readiness" is achieved.

But how? Suppose I want to work on a public farm, but I want to keep what I produce for myself and my family. Am I allowed to do that? Or would that be too selfish that you would disallow me to work on the said farm? And if I'm disallowed to use public resources, how am I supposed to look after myself, if I don't have access to any means of production?

Given the complete lack of context for those examples, I find myself honestly unable to respond. I simply have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Alassius]

Pardon? Do you think we could perhaps go over this hypothetical again, because I think we may be losing each other.

You asked what I would do if half the population of the country, the assumption being that they are of sound body and mind, refused to work. I replied that I would do nothing at all; they have every right to refuse to work. As long as they don't expect the rest of society to indulge them in some sort of self-appointed aristocracy, which be exploitative, then it is their choice, and their choice alone. I am not an authoritarian.

Why, exactly, is this the Stalinist atrocity that you seem to believe it is?

Systems of a society can be categorised by whether they have, and the nature of, a central authority, as follows:

1. No central authority and no Marxist abundance. As you've agreed, a dictatorship can be constructed from scratch. Where a central authority does not exist, people who want power find ways to acquire it, so an anarchy quickly develops into a Somalian style warlords civil war. This was the norm for existed anarchies that lived long enough (i.e. longer than Anarchist Catalonia) to see through the transition.

2. No central authority and has Marxist abundance. Because of abundance, supposedly nobody would want power, so everyone could live together happily ever after. This is the Marxist utopia, or the "people are all saints" scenario.

3. Central authority without limits to governmental power, of which are:

3.1. "Dictatorship of the proletariat". The ruling class is supposedly almost everyone (the proletariat). This government has all the features of a central authority, but since the ruling class is not supposed to harm itself, Marx didn't think it necessary to limit its power. The problem is that the proletariat didn't get to dictate, the Vanguard Party did.

3.2. Other forms of dictatorship. This is the norm for existed authoritarian governments other than Stalinists, from slavery to feudal to corporatist. Typically the ruling class claims that it's the elite, better than the rest of the population, so its ruling is better than mob rule. The argument is very similar to Leninism, except that Leninists argue the Vanguard Party actually represented 99% of the population (it didn't), and hence better than old autocracies where the ruling class was 1% of the population.

4. Central authority with limits to governmental power, or liberal democracy.

Unless you can find a new category, your democratic socialism must fall into one of the above. Now, it's ok to argue that your socialism takes a few steps. But it's not ok to suggest a feature of one system solves a problem in a different system. So, when you have a system that deals with "arseholes" "however you can", you can't use a reason like "fully realised system of libertarian socialism simply wouldn't be capable of supporting a centralised dictatorship", because you do have a centralised dictatorship at that moment.

Now, on one hand, your answer to lazy people is that you won't do anything, implying you don't need a central authority. On the other hand, you did say you need a central authority to deal with "arseholes". When I questioned you on that you admitted that you "don't have these things carved in stone". This ambiguity is lethal. Gradually or overnight, at any point in the transition to your ideal society, particularly in the ideal itself, either you have a central authority, or you don't. You cannot have it and don't have it at the same time. If you allow for that possibility, it's very likely you'd get Leninism again, which is the only system that claims to be a direct democracy and a dictatorship simultaneously. That is why I said your system ends up as Stalinist.

To argue that your system won't be Leninist, you need to, for each phase in your transition:

a) if the phase is of category 1) above, demonstrate why it won't devolve into Somalia;
b) if the phase is 2), demonstrate how abundance is to be achieved, or if you can offer any other ways to magically turn people into saints;
c) if the phase is 3), demonstrate why it won't turn into authoritarian.

You cannot:
i) solve a) by saying you have a central authority to handle "arseholes";
ii) solve c) by saying you don't have a central authority.

These question pertains to the idea of public welfare itself, not to Libertarian Socialism in particular. I'm not sure why you felt it was necessary to address it towards me, and not, say, Clement Atlee.

Noting that welfare governments spend a large amount of resources to simply identify who deserve welfare, you need to answer whether you also need a central authority for the same task. If you have no central authority at all, who is to stop me from claiming I'm disabled, and taking whatever I want without working for it?

Also it's worth saying that modern capitalist welfare err on side of spending more, so it tolerates some people "who are fully capable of contributing and refuse to". This may seem wasteful to the extreme right, but it's a good thing. It limits government's power to abuse the less well-off. Marxists and the associated ideologies see bad people as mortal enemies that deserve either a complete conversion to the ideal class, or starvation if they are too stubburn. This intolerance can easily be directed to previously good people, once someone can convince enough people that those good people are actually bad.

Why do you think think that constitutionalism demands a centralised state? It seems a principle with fairly wide application.

Saying "constitutionalism demands a centralised state" is like saying "traffic law demands driving". The need for driving comes from elsewhere. A traffic law promotes driving only by making it safer.

That depends entirely on what you mean by "liberal institutions".

1. Protection of free speech. This inhibits propaganda and indoctrination.
2. Protection of the body, which comprises due process and innocence presumption.
3. Protection of private property, which precludes many kinds of state coercion.

The most important part is that these protections must apply as indiscriminately as possible. They protect bad people as well as good people, which is by itself a restriction on the government: it cannot identify people as good or bad without a lengthy and difficult process, even when the case is evident. Protecting bad people and evil things that happen under capitalism is the price of protecting good people from worse things.

For the first, I would've thought it was rather self-evident. That, at least, should not be a point that we disagree on.
As for the second, I imagine a gradual transition, so there will never be any single point at which "readiness" is achieved.

What I'm asking is when this self-evident problem would be solved. But apparently by "gradual transition" you mean "never"... Well I'm going to ask a little bit differently, just to clarify. Do you have a latest possible date when your anarchy would be fully achieved? Is it this century? Or is it 23rd century? Or maybe the 5992nd? Or is it really "never"?

Given the complete lack of context for those examples, I find myself honestly unable to respond. I simply have no idea what you're talking about.

This scenario applies when you have a central authority to distribute means of production. Either answer that, or, if you don't have an authority, you need to explain how you are going to stop me if I decided to just take all of a village's means of production by force, then demand the village population to work in my sweatshop.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I would call A, B, OR C communism...

Though not B alone, so I should have voted A or C. Since B could be with any economic system.

 

[Karalysia]

The pinkos in that thread sicken me. Their fluffy romanticism is incompatible with the spirit of hatred towards the evil capitalists. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. If the perspective of standing submerged in the blood of the oppressors up to your ears disgusts you, go on and join the oppressive bourgeoise in abusing the exploited peoples of the world. It'd be much more honest, then spewing all that fluffy "anti-violence" nonsense that is dangerously subversive to proper revolutionary process. Don't shy away from blood and dirt. Great wars always have great victims.

I second this post.

The dictatorship of the proletariat must act as a revolutionary vanguard and seize power in order to defend the revolution against all enemies who will inevitably seek to destroy it in it's early days. They must be willing to do anything required to safeguard the revolution and keep the flame of liberation alive.

An example must be made of the enemies of socialism. Those who refuse to work should be shot. Those who are counterrevolutionaries should be shot. Those who are traitors should be shot. Those who are capitalists and rightists should be shot. Those who question the socialist system should be shot.

Let it be made clear that the enemies of the system must be destroyed first before the system can be in place. The blood of the capitalist must flow freely in the street as a purification and sanctification before socialism can wash away the capitalist filth once and for all.

And then, and only then after the enemies have been purged can the glorious socialist system be installed.

You and I understand this comrade, but these so called "libertarian socialists" and "anarchists" are naive idealists. I dare say that they too must be destroyed before right-minded people like ourselves can remake society as Marx and Lenin and Stalin intended for they were great men who knew what had to be done for the greater good.

 

[civver_764]

 

[Ajidica]

I prefer:

I would call A, B, OR C communism...

Only C applies.
With regards for A, it is very hard for any sort of centralized economy to occur when there is no goverment to control it!
As for B, I think you really need to read Marx. He explicitly defines Communism as the 'triumph of democracy'. A one party state sort of defeats the point of democracy.