Page 7 of 10 [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

04 Aug 2012, 3:19 am

No, lynching is what happens when a central authority is not listened to and is totally inadequate. In this case, the central authority is just strong enough to prevent the creation of smaller, autonomous communities, but not strong enough to truly enforce anything. The individuals have no legal means of enforcing justice, so they have to use extralegal means. This is chaos, not anarchy.

I don't know specifically how it would be handle under a communal system, because each community would create its own rules and its own system. However, I can assure you that it would not involve random violence, nor wanton revenge. Rather, the group would decide what is best, either by creating its own rules and procedures, by judging individual cases collectively or any other way.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

04 Aug 2012, 3:23 am

Aspie_Chav wrote:
Communism can't work. It has to use the resources created by capitalism as a starting point.


That is a non-sequitor. Marx himself postulated that communism would emerge from the dynamics of capitalistic exploitation of labor. The so-called Marxist dialectic. One could not get to communism except by having capitalism first.

ruveyn



Aspie_Chav
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,931
Location: Croydon

04 Aug 2012, 2:18 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Aspie_Chav wrote:
Communism can't work. It has to use the resources created by capitalism as a starting point.


That is a non-sequitor. Marx himself postulated that communism would emerge from the dynamics of capitalistic exploitation of labor. The so-called Marxist dialectic. One could not get to communism except by having capitalism first.

ruveyn


So parasites can only come about on the back of its host. When the host dies, so will the parasite. Mmm.. I guess if parasites can thrive in nature, then it can also thrive as a philosophy too.

Never seen Communism in such a positive light.
Image



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

04 Aug 2012, 2:21 pm

Aspie_Chav wrote:

So parasites can only come about on the back of its host. When the host dies, so will the parasite. Mmm.. I guess if parasites can thrive in nature, then it can also thrive as a philosophy too.



That is not how Marx's version of the Hegelian dialectic worked. And Communism in the manner of the Marxian dialectic never happened. Not once, Not anywhere.

ruveyn



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

04 Aug 2012, 2:30 pm

enrico_dandolo wrote:
No, lynching is what happens when a central authority is not listened to and is totally inadequate. In this case, the central authority is just strong enough to prevent the creation of smaller, autonomous communities, but not strong enough to truly enforce anything. The individuals have no legal means of enforcing justice, so they have to use extralegal means. This is chaos, not anarchy.

I don't know specifically how it would be handle under a communal system, because each community would create its own rules and its own system. However, I can assure you that it would not involve random violence, nor wanton revenge. Rather, the group would decide what is best, either by creating its own rules and procedures, by judging individual cases collectively or any other way.


Is this Marcos's "world that contains all worlds"?


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

04 Aug 2012, 2:33 pm

Aspie_Chav wrote:
So parasites can only come about on the back of its host. When the host dies, so will the parasite. Mmm.. I guess if parasites can thrive in nature, then it can also thrive as a philosophy too.


No, its (supposedly, theoretically) an evolution not a "parasite" that is "hosted" by capitalism but the stage of history following it, same as capitalism is not "parasite" that feudalism "hosts", but a stage that follows feudalism.

Marx was right about some things. He was right in predicting that capitalism would destroy national industries and subordinate them to a global economy, complete with its own culture, and this would be the harbinger of a new class coming to dominance after pushing the merchant-industrialists of the 19th and 20th centuries out of the way. But he was wrong about which class, it wasn't the factory worker, it was the managerial/executive class (who, in his time, were little more than supervisors/accountants and were essentially trusted servants, classified by him as members of the "petty bourgeouis" rather than true bourgeouis).



04 Aug 2012, 3:13 pm

enrico_dandolo wrote:
No, lynching is what happens when a central authority is not listened to and is totally inadequate. In this case, the central authority is just strong enough to prevent the creation of smaller, autonomous communities, but not strong enough to truly enforce anything. The individuals have no legal means of enforcing justice, so they have to use extralegal means. This is chaos, not anarchy.

I don't know specifically how it would be handle under a communal system, because each community would create its own rules and its own system. However, I can assure you that it would not involve random violence, nor wanton revenge. Rather, the group would decide what is best, either by creating its own rules and procedures, by judging individual cases collectively or any other way.



Who is going to protect the rights of an individual who is despised by the community for being different despite having done no wrong? Who will protect someone falsely accused by another member of the community who is better liked and respected than the accused? With no central authority, there is nothing to stop people from ganging up on somebody they dislike and harming that person. Anarchy soon leads to chaos. If don't believe me, just look at what happened in Somalia following the collapse of the government.

Perhaps a better example was the Occupy movement, which was based on the principles of leaderless resistance and communal living. It was unable to achieve its goals due to being disorganized and chaotic.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

04 Aug 2012, 3:20 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
Perhaps a better example was the Occupy movement, which was based on the principles of leaderless resistance and communal living. It was unable to achieve its goals due to being disorganized and chaotic.


I have an inside track that occupy was completely successful as a provo to show
the truth about the propose of police.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

04 Aug 2012, 3:25 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
Who is going to protect the rights of an individual who is despised by the community for being different despite having done no wrong? Who will protect someone falsely accused by another member of the community who is better liked and respected than the accused? With no central authority, there is nothing to stop people from ganging up on somebody they dislike and harming that person. Anarchy soon leads to chaos. If don't believe me, just look at what happened in Somalia following the collapse of the government.


Communalism might or might not feature authority ... it's a separate issue altogether. The military, for instance, is communal to a extreme degree but there is definately no lack of order and authority. This is a good argument against anarchy (which, theoretically, is the end goal of communism) but not communal organization.



04 Aug 2012, 3:56 pm

edgewaters wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Who is going to protect the rights of an individual who is despised by the community for being different despite having done no wrong? Who will protect someone falsely accused by another member of the community who is better liked and respected than the accused? With no central authority, there is nothing to stop people from ganging up on somebody they dislike and harming that person. Anarchy soon leads to chaos. If don't believe me, just look at what happened in Somalia following the collapse of the government.


Communalism might or might not feature authority ... it's a separate issue altogether. The military, for instance, is communal to a extreme degree but there is definately no lack of order and authority. This is a good argument against anarchy (which, theoretically, is the end goal of communism) but not communal organization.


I'm not entirely against socialism, but I do believe in private property. My idea is that everyone be equal in terms of what they have as their own; rather than communal ownership. The means of production should owned and controlled by the state. And of course, there needs to be a central authority and a chain of command.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

04 Aug 2012, 4:02 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Who is going to protect the rights of an individual who is despised by the community for being different despite having done no wrong? Who will protect someone falsely accused by another member of the community who is better liked and respected than the accused? With no central authority, there is nothing to stop people from ganging up on somebody they dislike and harming that person. Anarchy soon leads to chaos. If don't believe me, just look at what happened in Somalia following the collapse of the government.


Communalism might or might not feature authority ... it's a separate issue altogether. The military, for instance, is communal to a extreme degree but there is definately no lack of order and authority. This is a good argument against anarchy (which, theoretically, is the end goal of communism) but not communal organization.


I'm not entirely against socialism, but I do believe in private property. My idea is that everyone be equal in terms of what they have as their own; rather than communal ownership. The means of production should owned and controlled by the state. And of course, there needs to be a central authority and a chain of command.



Theres different types of property. You have personal property such as your house, your car or your TV. Then theres the other sort of property such known as 'private property' such as a factory, office or hospital. Anything which is owned specifically to exappropriate the labour power of workers. Anti communists deliberately obfusticate the two so that people will falsely think communism means having to give up your posessions.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

04 Aug 2012, 5:05 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Who is going to protect the rights of an individual who is despised by the community for being different despite having done no wrong? Who will protect someone falsely accused by another member of the community who is better liked and respected than the accused? With no central authority, there is nothing to stop people from ganging up on somebody they dislike and harming that person. Anarchy soon leads to chaos. If don't believe me, just look at what happened in Somalia following the collapse of the government.


Communalism might or might not feature authority ... it's a separate issue altogether. The military, for instance, is communal to a extreme degree but there is definately no lack of order and authority. This is a good argument against anarchy (which, theoretically, is the end goal of communism) but not communal organization.


I'm not entirely against socialism, but I do believe in private property. My idea is that everyone be equal in terms of what they have as their own; rather than communal ownership. The means of production should owned and controlled by the state. And of course, there needs to be a central authority and a chain of command.


So would I be going out on a limb calling you a authoritarian communist?


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

04 Aug 2012, 7:28 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
Perhaps a better example was the Occupy movement, which was based on the principles of leaderless resistance and communal living. It was unable to achieve its goals due to being disorganized and chaotic.

No
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GazhaLD_Daw[/youtube]



Aspie_Chav
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,931
Location: Croydon

04 Aug 2012, 8:00 pm

edgewaters wrote:
Aspie_Chav wrote:
So parasites can only come about on the back of its host. When the host dies, so will the parasite. Mmm.. I guess if parasites can thrive in nature, then it can also thrive as a philosophy too.


No, its (supposedly, theoretically) an evolution not a "parasite" that is "hosted" by capitalism but the stage of history following it, same as capitalism is not "parasite" that feudalism "hosts", but a stage that follows feudalism.

Marx was right about some things. He was right in predicting that capitalism would destroy national industries and subordinate them to a global economy, complete with its own culture, and this would be the harbinger of a new class coming to dominance after pushing the merchant-industrialists of the 19th and 20th centuries out of the way. But he was wrong about which class, it wasn't the factory worker, it was the managerial/executive class (who, in his time, were little more than supervisors/accountants and were essentially trusted servants, classified by him as members of the "petty bourgeouis" rather than true bourgeouis).


I meant communism is a parasite on capitalism. Capitalism creates the wealth, then communism feeds of i until there is nothing.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

04 Aug 2012, 8:00 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Anything which is owned specifically to exappropriate the labour power of workers. Anti communists deliberately obfusticate the two so that people will falsely think communism means having to give up your posessions.


Workers are paid for their labor. Nothing is expropriated. It is a simple trade: so many hours at performing a task in exchange for so many monetary units.

ruveyn



Aspie_Chav
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,931
Location: Croydon

04 Aug 2012, 8:09 pm

One of the issues with communism is collective ownership is a poor substitute for private ownership.
In the Croydon riots people would run home to protect their property rather then riot on the street.