Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As no such country has ever existed, no you didn't. You may very well have grown up in Statist tyranny that labeled themselves communist, but I can label myself Hans MagicHorn, King of the Unicorns and it doesn't mean I really am.
You mean statists, since a true communist would leave you alone after you chose to not be part of their stateless commune.
But on statists, yes, I 100% agree. They are indeed the most despicable creatures in the world.
Go to NK and tell them their country is not a communist country and see what happens.
The major (and minor) communist powers have always had state controlled production and not worker control. Worker control of production is a pipe dream.
I don't know if you're disagreeing...if you are it's with the principle of motivation and that really doesn't matter at that point.
I disagree that the workers are the rightful owners, as we've been over, but that's not a problem because there are remedies in place to deal with someone like you. First would be (cue the Larken Rose quote) I don't even deal with you because I know you're a communist. If I do form a contract with you to work for me I'll require said contract and get insurance on our relationship. Being a communist, you'd be high-risk so the premiums would be through the roof. When you walk off with my tools (you saying that they are your tools) I don't stop you or kill you...I simply file a claim with the insurance company.
ok, this is interesting, I think you won’t agree with me here.
Ownership by operation is part of nature from the communist analysis, it’s not about whether you’re a communist or capitalist, it is based on natural law.
If you have workers operating a factory, a crop field, or any workplace then they are always the rightful owners as long as that operation continues.
Now capitalism can still exist in the natural state, but it must be based on the cumulative acknowledgement of the workers. Once the majority of workers don’t consent to the authority of the capitalist, the capitalist rules their authority of excess land/production means.
In this way capitalism would be reliant on and derive their power from the bottom up, not the top down. As such the relationship between owner and employer would be on equal footing.
You could hypothetically have workers that never question your authority, but that right is always there as cumulative control of capital is universal.
The major (and minor) communist powers have always had state controlled production and not worker control. Worker control of production is a pipe dream.
Besides all the other examples I gave you like the zapatistas, the CNT in Barcelona, Kurdistan, anarchist manchuria, etc. it also existed in a time for the USSR:
The soviets formed as a grassroots effort to practice direct democracy. Russian Marxists made them a medium for organizing against the state, and in 1917, between the February and October Revolutions, the Petrograd Soviet became a powerful force. The Bolsheviks used the slogan "All power to the soviets!" (Vsya vlast sovyetam!; Вся власть советам! [ˈfsʲə ˈvlɐstʲ sɐˈvʲetɐm]) to oppose the Provisional Government led by Kerensky.
Based on the Bolshevik view of the state, the word soviet extended its meaning to any overarching body that obtained the authority of a group of soviets. In this sense, individual soviets became part of a federal structure - Communist government bodies at local level and republic level[note 1] were called "soviets", and at the top of the hierarchy, the Congress of Soviets became the nominal core of the Union government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), officially formed in December 1922. Successive Soviet Constitutions recognised the leading role of the Communist Party in politics,[citation needed] - the 1936 Constitution deemed it the "leading nucleus of all organisations of workers, whether public or state".[5] The soviets were structured[by whom?] as the instruments through which the Party governed the country. Thus the organs of the Communist Party (the highest being the Central Committee) made decisions on state policy, while the soviets acted as a system for public approval of implementing the Party's programme.
Later,[when?] in the USSR, local-government bodies were named "soviet" (sovet: "council") with an adjective indicating the administrative level, customarily abbreviated: gorsovet (gorodskoy sovet: city council), raysovet/raisovet (rayonny sovet: raion council), selsovet (sel'sky sovet: rural council), possovet (poselkovy sovet: settlement council). In practice deputies in a soviet often worked in standing committees and carried out functions with the help of unpaid volunteers (the aktiv - Russian: актив).[6]
And there are many more, during the GPCR in China many villages in the west became fully autonomous while the shanghai communes were set up for a short while.
ok, this is interesting, I think you won’t agree with me here.
Ownership by operation is part of nature from the communist analysis, it’s not about whether you’re a communist or capitalist, it is based on natural law.
If you have workers operating a factory, a crop field, or any workplace then they are always the rightful owners as long as that operation continues.
Now capitalism can still exist in the natural state, but it must be based on the cumulative acknowledgement of the workers. Once the majority of workers don’t consent to the authority of the capitalist, the capitalist rules their authority of excess land/production means.
In this way capitalism would be reliant on and derive their power from the bottom up, not the top down. As such the relationship between owner and employer would be on equal footing.
You could hypothetically have workers that never question your authority, but that right is always there as cumulative control of capital is universal.
I think natural law is on my side.
You will either agree to work for me or not based on a contract. As long as both parties rightfully consent to the agreement then the paradigm is on equal footing. It's about consent. Natural law says we have the cognitive ability to self-determination based on our unique intelligence. Only an individual can give consent, place a proper value on his time, skill, goods, services, etc.
Contracts are only valid if they are enforceable. That is the key. There is where insurance comes into play as well as mutually-agreed upon dispute resolution councils.
Excess land/production means never becomes an issue under this paradigm. I can only produce what I can produce or contractually convince another to produce for me. We've been over this.
When it gets too big you call it private property and not personal property and that's not allowed according to you. It won't matter to me because I'm covered by insurance for what it would deem as theft. If the workers rebel and take all my tools (or simply stop consenting as you put it) I simply file a claim with the insurance company.
Violence is pretty straight forward. If you come into my personal home uninvited with the intent to steal or harm me I will rightfully kill you myself. If you come into a property I own then rent out (which you don't believe is my rightful property) the property manager will act on my behalf and kill you. It's just that you will never know that you were killed by a third party who was contracted to act on my behalf. To you, he's just defending himself.
I’m not a Marxist, but watching Rogan nod his head like he is learning something here is beyond frustrating.
Accumulation of wealth has nothing to do with production abilities, but with ownership claims. The entire process of investments and commodities are based around numerical exchange and control of said exchange, not the production of such things.
Even in entertainment the scale to gauge who should control more capital is impossible to form so instead external forces give platforms to certain forms of entertainment, none of which produce value (they can be used to exploit value, but that is something different).
Furthermore demand is not supplied based on needs, it is targeted based on the value of the demand base. Some people have more money (because of the system mentioned above) so large authoritarian corporations target different consumer bases with unequal quantity and build demand for more consumption by that same demand base (as to increase profits). Conversely having worker (not state) control of the means of production and distribution based off of each according to their own needs is imbedded in human evolution and function as people consume at different levels.
And yet still Western intellectuals do not even attempt to comprehend these historical or technical issues and deride something that is a threat to their own power base. How are they anything but propagandists?
Why do Western raised children study and hope to see Marxism in this country. How could they find that a better solution than what we have?
You will either agree to work for me or not based on a contract. As long as both parties rightfully consent to the agreement then the paradigm is on equal footing. It's about consent. Natural law says we have the cognitive ability to self-determination based on our unique intelligence. Only an individual can give consent, place a proper value on his time, skill, goods, services, etc.
Contracts are only valid if they are enforceable. That is the key. There is where insurance comes into play as well as mutually-agreed upon dispute resolution councils.
Excess land/production means never becomes an issue under this paradigm. I can only produce what I can produce or contractually convince another to produce for me. We've been over this.
When it gets too big you call it private property and not personal property and that's not allowed according to you. It won't matter to me because I'm covered by insurance for what it would deem as theft. If the workers rebel and take all my tools (or simply stop consenting as you put it) I simply file a claim with the insurance company.
Violence is pretty straight forward. If you come into my personal home uninvited with the intent to steal or harm me I will rightfully kill you myself. If you come into a property I own then rent out (which you don't believe is my rightful property) the property manager will act on my behalf and kill you. It's just that you will never know that you were killed by a third party who was contracted to act on my behalf. To you, he's just defending himself.
Consent does not equal control. If someone consents to be your slave, that person is still an autonomous being who controls whatever he/she produces and operates.
If you contractually convince someone to produce for you, that production is still not yours, it is the worker's, the worker just acts as you demand giving you the appearance of control. The actual accumulation of wealth beyond your own physical/mental limits is impossible being as you have no legal ownership of anything.
In practice private property could appear to exist, but it still wouldn't for all extensive purposes. The difference between paying someone who owns capital to do as you say and owning the capital makes it self clear in the power balances. If you pay people on a crop field to work for you, they have direct control of the capital you need, it's not a question of stealing tools, but owning the land. As such they have leverage over you as independently you could never control that capital.
In today's world that capital is owned by the capitalists and workers must sell their labor to gain access to it. The reverse is true in a free and practical society. Now as for insurance companies, I'm sure a bunch of capitalist can band together and form insurance on capital, but being as the person paying for labor does not have an intrinsic claim on the means of production, the risk level is too high for any significant process of collateral to be obtained.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
