Comments on: Arguments from Ignorants

By: Does Communism need a State? | A Division by Zer0

Does Communism need a State? | A Division by Zer0 — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:13:04 +0000

[...] planning which allows complex processes to be guided has also been brought up by others, such as my recent argument with BadTux. In his case he brought it as an argument against central planning [...]

By: Shaun

Shaun — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 06:18:45 +0000

Also I just want to make it clear that I'm not even a Marxist – but your argument is just so offensive that I had to step in and take a side.

By: Shaun Kobrin

Shaun Kobrin — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 05:47:35 +0000

"Wow. So the ideal can never be impugned because it's unprovable? All failed attempts are by definition not communism. Talk about a theory with a built-in escape valve. It's no different than idolatry. That's fucking theology in a nutshell. What utter nonsense."

If you were not insinuating that the Soviet Union is the definition of Communism – frankly, I don't know what you were trying to say.

By: db0

db0 — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 01:20:35 +0000

I'm not a Marxist either. The thing is that Communism and Marxism was so misrepresented that anyone with even a passing familiarity can see the mistakes.

By: db0

db0 — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:34:08 +0000

James, I am not taken aback by such behaviour as I've grown quite a thick skin by now. It simply meant that I responded in kind.
We can continue the discussion in more civil terms if you wish and I've already toned down my aggression in my latest responses.

By: db0

db0 — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:32:03 +0000

Simple, you say that USSR and China are Communist because they claim(ed) to be. By the same token, one should consider Zimbabwe and North Korea as Democracy, as they claim to be

By: db0

db0 — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:26:22 +0000

There is no need for humans to be totally honest, informed etc, This has never been my argument. As long as the system they have does not reward dishonest, greedy etc behaviour and has an form which avoids the concentration of power, it will work. This is why I brought up the Free Software which, even worse than Communism, has actual benevolent dictators for each project and because of its structure, this does not create a problem of power.

Yes, of course Communism does not require a dog-eat-dog or Consumerist mentality as the one promoted by Capitalism but this kind of hostile individuality on this scale is something rare in the history human civilization and certainly non-existent in pre-civilization. Communism does not require the ripping out of competitiveness, individuality or natural leadership of humans but it simply requires them to take a more cooperative & Epicurean aspect to their life. The capacity of humans to do either is both proven and supported by history and pre-history.

Look at any socialist revolutionary period and you'll see an amazing amount of cooperation and spontaneous organization without any such problem of power. People act amazingly different when they know it is in their benefit, to such a degree that even Communists are surprised. There is the seed that can bloom to be a flower if we let it.

By: db0

db0 — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:12:15 +0000

Are we talking about the same thing or not? When I'm talking about Communism I am talking about a classless, stateless society. Not a commune (like the ones you seem to have studied) or anything else.

At this point I'm not certain what you're trying to say.

By: BlueLinchpin

BlueLinchpin — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 08:01:14 +0000

Okay?

By: BlueLinchpin

BlueLinchpin — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 07:21:52 +0000

Thank you db0. That is exactly the point, and no one before has had trouble with it.

What politicians claim should be the last measure of reality.