Intelligent Discussion About A New Form of Communism (Uneducated people dont come. )

dude8799

Educated Commy
#1
Hi guys I am interested by some of the ideas of communism so I thought I would see if you guys wanted to talk about it on this forum.
 

Cloaked

Iron Fisted Ruler
Staff member
#2
Which parts intrigue you?

I can think of no part of communism that would interesting. On paper it might look good, but, we all know how well it worked in Russia don't we?
 

dude8799

Educated Commy
#3
I'm very interested in a shared resources society. There was a society in the Netherlands that practiced shared resources. There would be no poor if there was a gift economy. I believe this is called syndacitism. Dont judge me on the spelling of that
 

hugo

Big Time BS'er
#4
Communism can work with small numbers of people, probably about 500 maximum who share certain values in common. It cannot work on any population of any significance. Most people prefer leisure over work if the income is equal. You should try a commune.
 

eddo

I don't like you.
#5
Why should I work harder than someone else just to end up with the basically the same income?

Eventually, those working harder to support those not working will get tired of it and either quit working too, or revolt.
 

hugo

Big Time BS'er
#6
The stupidity of Anarcho Communism revealed:

The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists


by Murray N. Rothbardby Murray N. Rothbard



This article first appeared in The Libertarian Forum, January 1, 1970.

Now that the New Left has abandoned its earlier loose, flexible non-ideological stance, two ideologies have been adopted as guiding theoretical positions by New Leftists: Marxism-Stalinism, and anarcho-communism.


Marxism-Stalinism has unfortunately conquered SDS, but anarcho-communism has attracted many leftists who are looking for a way out of the bureaucratic and statist tyranny that has marked the Stalinist road.

And many libertarians, who are looking for forms of action and for allies in such actions, have become attracted by an anarchist creed which seemingly exalts the voluntary way and calls for the abolition of the coercive State.

It is fatal, however, to abandon and lose sight of one's own principles in the quest for allies in specific tactical actions.

Anarcho-communism, both in its original Bakunin-Kropotkin form and its current irrationalist and "post-scarcity" variety, is poles apart from genuine libertarian principle.

If there is one thing, for example, that anarcho-communism hates and reviles more than the State it is the rights of private property; as a matter of fact, the major reason that anarcho-communists oppose the State is because they wrongly believe that it is the creator and protector of private property, and therefore that the only route toward abolition of property is by destruction of the State apparatus.

They totally fail to realize that the State has always been the great enemy and invader of the rights of private property.

Furthermore, scorning and detesting the free-market, the profit-and-loss economy, private property, and material affluence – all of which are corollaries of each other – anarcho-communists wrongly identify anarchism with communal living, with tribal sharing, and with other aspects of our emerging drug-rock "youth culture."

The only good thing that one might say about anarcho-communism is that, in contrast to Stalinism, its form of communism would, supposedly, be voluntary. Presumably, no one would be forced to join the communes, and those who would continue to live individually, and to engage in market activities, would remain unmolested.

Or would they?

Anarcho-communists have always been extremely vague and cloudy about the lineaments of their proposed anarchist society of the future. Many of them have been propounding the profoundly anti-libertarian doctrine that the anarcho-communist revolution will have to confiscate and abolish all private property, so as to wean everyone from their psychological attachment to the property they own.

Furthermore, it is hard to forget the fact that when the Spanish Anarchists (anarcho-communists of the Bakunin-Kropotkin type) took over large sections of Spain during the Civil War of the 193Os, they confiscated and destroyed all the money in their areas and promptly decreed the death penalty for the use of money. None of this can give one confidence in the good, voluntarist intentions of anarcho-communism.

On all other grounds, anarcho-communism ranges from mischievous to absurd.

Philosophically, this creed is an all-out assault on individuality and on reason. The individual's desire for private property, his drive to better himself, to specialize, to accumulate profits and income, are reviled by all branches of communism. Instead, everyone is supposed to live in communes, sharing all his meager possessions with his fellows, and each being careful not to advance beyond his communal brothers.

At the root of all forms of communism, compulsory or voluntary, lies a profound hatred of individual excellence, a denial of the natural or intellectual superiority of some men over others, and a desire to tear down every individual to the level of a communal ant-heap. In the name of a phony "humanism," an irrational and profoundly anti-human egalitarianism is to rob every individual of his specific and precious humanity.

Furthermore, anarcho-communism scorns reason, and its corollaries long-range purpose, forethought, hard work, and individual achievement; instead, it exalts irrational feelings, whim, and caprice – all this in the name of "freedom." The "freedom" of the anarcho-communist has nothing to do with the genuine libertarian absence of interpersonal invasion or molestation; it is, instead, a "freedom" that means enslavement to unreason, to unexamined whim, and to childish caprice. Socially and philosophically, anarcho-communism is a misfortune.

Economically, anarcho-communism is an absurdity. The anarcho-communist seeks to abolish money, prices, and employment, and proposes to conduct a modern economy purely by the automatic registry of "needs" in some central data bank. No one who has the slightest understanding of economics can trifle with this theory for a single second.





Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles. He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.
 

hugo

Big Time BS'er
#7
I cut the previous article short to stay under the 10K limit. I suggest "educating" yourself and reading the entire article.
 

dude8799

Educated Commy
#8
No Economy can be perfect. I personally think that there is no reason to even have a currency. Why should one man feel better than another. What makes people "better" than others. At the root of it is money. If the world were organized into small anarcho-communist communes like Freetown Christania we would have no need for the dollar. Communism works in small communes because peer pressure can essentially "force" people to work without actually taking away their free will. I am not a Marxist. What Marx said and what people interpreted it as are two different things and I don't support how people interpret it. Go educate yourself about Freetown Christania the most successful anarcho communist society yet.
 

hugo

Big Time BS'er
#9
I agree communism can work in small groups with shared ideals. Myself, and my wife, live in a communist household. It cannot work on a large scale level. The fact is you take away money and there will still be people who are better than others, based on looks, skills, etc. Taking away money is stupid, exchanging money for goods is much easier than barter, that is why every community of any size has money. I am betting those Freetown Christiana people also utilize money to purchase goods that are not available within the community. Those who wish to live in communes are free to do so in a libertarian state. Commies are fine as long as they do not interfere with my right to private property; a basic human right.

A little info:

Currency
Although the Danish Krone is accepted on the streets of Christiania, the official currency is the Løn, which are minted each year. Locals are paid in Løns, and the coins can be used throughout the town. The Løn has been issued since 1997; previously Christianites used a currency called the Fed and, in one year, the Klump.[26] Hemp tokens, also known as "Nemos", which could be exchanged for cannabis, were also in circulation
Yep, they got money.
.
 

Rose

Active Member
#12
I'm very interested in a shared resources society. There was a society in the Netherlands that practiced shared resources. There would be no poor if there was a gift economy. I believe this is called syndacitism. Dont judge me on the spelling of that
... was not able to check it out in google but on my end, but I'll agree with Cloaked saying it's good in paper. But for the most part, look at North Korea. Boom!
 

jokersarewild

Conservative/Liberal Beater
#13
I'm more of a fan of Socialism myself (which eventually leads to Communism, I realize). I have an economic hardon for the idea of getting what one puts into the collective (vs, for instance, those that put in squat and get free money. I'm looking at you, my next-door neighbors.)
 

timesjoke

Progressive Killer
#14
Well I will also agree that all of these ideas work great on paper and even in small communities where as you say "peer pressure" helps to keep people in line, but you cannot make this function on a large scale, let me offer you one example:

You are now talking to us on a computer, if you reduced the available goods and products to what your small community could produce using local materials and local labor then things like a personal computer and a global internet are impossible becausae there is no way to barter your way into a global economy. A system of money must be used to allow all the different methods of labor, supply, and services to come together on a large scale.


Consider that most of the food produced in America comes from the South, how do the northern States get food if they cannot get it from the south using some form of established trade? Even with the food being created in the south, all large cities must die off because they cannot produce enough food to feed themselves. Without money there is no way for a city dweller to get the county dweller to give him the food he needs.


Hell no money then no gas or cars either, basically we all revert back to the stone ages because how do we get an Arab to give us oil for gas when there is no system of money to reimburse him? Do you think he will just give us oil for free? The entire concept of creating a world without monetary exchange is only sustainable on paper.


**********************************

Looking at your Freetown Christania examp0le I see a part on Wiki that catches the eye:


"The region negotiated an arrangement with the Danish defence ministry (which still owns the land) in 1995. Since 1994, residents have paid taxes and fees for water, electricity, trash disposal, etc. The future of the area remains in doubt, though, as Danish authorities continue to push for its removal.
After bitter negotiations that temporarily resulted in the area being sealed off to the public, in June 2011, the residents of Christiania agreed to collectively set up a fund to formally purchase the land at below market prices. Uncertainty remains over how the money will be raised."


So this community can only exist as a sub-community where someone else is providing things like water and garbage disposal, the members get many products brought in so they are not self-sustaining and they even sell pot to get money so this is not an example of an isolated communty taking care of itself, it requires the help of outsiders and world money forms to survive.