Are Communism, Liberalism and Social Justice one in the same?

[Feela]

What makes this organization "communist" as opposed to "charity"?

It is both, it is an example of libertarian communism, it is based on need not money and it is a decentralised organisation based on free agreement.

And there are lots of crappy jobs that can't. Why would anyone choose to "develop their creative potential" in those jobs if they had no incentive to do so?

People would likely decide to take turns doing these, it is nothing that can't be worked out by free agreement, things like the rigid division of labour and long working days would not exist.

Nonsense. I consider myself mainly a capitalist, and I have no desire to deprive anyone of access to means of production. They should have the right to start any business they want to, within the bounds of the rights of others.

Capitalism only came into existence by denying most access to the means of production, with things like enclosure, merchantilism etc
It is called primitive accumulation.The state alos does much to maintain this situation.

Because I can?

Right so you'd annoy those in your community, who would be alot closer to you than todays communities so you can take more than you need?

So if I want to build my home on your commune free of charge, but don't wish to provide anything for the commune...that would be OK?

Well nothing is set in stone, there are no blueprints for libertarian socialism, but as long as the land or property isn't in direct use or occupancy it cannot be owned,so you could if that was true.
If you don't contribute it would be up to the local community they probably would give you necessities but wouldn't have to if they don't agree that is the point, people come to live in communism freely because they think it is best for them so agree to it, if they don't want to abide by the rules they are free to leave.
And as we don't agree with anything but direct occupancy and use property then anyone would be free to use unused land.

I don't understand what this organization has to do with anything. It sounds like a pretty standard charity to me. And it's certainly not a society that has an economy of its own.

This is the kind of thing libertarian communism is based on, decentralised free agreement where things are distributed by need.

You can get an education in any field you want to, whether there's a job market for it or not.

The point is that we believe the general point of capitalist public education is to make you docile drone for the system.

 

[Kandahar]

It is both, it is an example of libertarian communism, it is based on need not money and it is a decentralised organisation based on free agreement.

Charities can't be capitalist, socialist, communist, or anything else. They're just charities.

People would likely decide to take turns doing these, it is nothing that can't be worked out by free agreement, things like the rigid division of labour and long working days would not exist.

Why would they decide to take turns? I don't want to collect trash even one day of the month. Most people probably don't.

Capitalism only came into existence by denying most access to the means of production, with things like enclosure, merchantilism etc
It is called primitive accumulation.The state alos does much to maintain this situation.

Under a pure capitalist system, all the state does is enforce laws designed to protect people from force and fraud. It doesn't concern itself with who has access to the means of production at all, it just stays out of the way.

Right so you'd annoy those in your community, who would be alot closer to you than todays communities so you can take more than you need?

Sure...why wouldn't I?

Well nothing is set in stone, there are no blueprints for libertarian socialism, but as long as the land or property isn't in direct use or occupancy it cannot be owned,so you could if that was true.

OK, bad analogy. If I want to take all the food I need/want from your commune, but don't want to provide anything in return. Is that OK?

If you don't contribute it would be up to the local community they probably would give you necessities but wouldn't have to if they don't agree that is the point,

That's the point. There's no way to determine who qualifies and who doesn't, without some kind of snooping government.

people come to live in communism freely because they think it is best for them so agree to it, if they don't want to abide by the rules they are free to leave.

The same is true of most capitalist societies.

And as we don't agree with anything but direct occupancy and use property then anyone would be free to use unused land.

This is the kind of thing libertarian communism is based on, decentralised free agreement where things are distributed by need.

Who determines need? Who determines ability?

The point is that we believe the general point of capitalist public education is to make you docile drone for the system.

What subjects in our education system would you replace, and what would you replace them with? Please only cite replacement subjects that don't indoctrinate people in exactly the manner you're accusing the current system of doing.

 

[Feela]

Charities can't be capitalist, socialist, communist, or anything else. They're just charities.

What are you talking about? they are an example of distribution according to need and hence communism. This is fact. Libertarian communism would just be a mass of similar organisations.
People would come together in free agreement to distribute and produce as they like, we feel communism would be the most likely and most just method of distribution and hence people would choose it by free agreement.

Why would they decide to take turns? I don't want to collect trash even one day of the month. Most people probably don't.

And yet you are happy to condemn others to it because they don't have the right qualifications.

Under a pure capitalist system, all the state does is enforce laws designed to protect people from force and fraud. It doesn't concern itself with who has access to the means of production at all, it just stays out of the way.

No this is just a myth, if the state did this capitalism would break down because people could have much easier access to the means of production and hence not work for capitalists.

Sure...why wouldn't I?

Do you steal from your friends or family when they are not looking?

OK, bad analogy. If I want to take all the food I need/want from your commune, but don't want to provide anything in return. Is that OK?

Not if that is not what is agreed to I would say.

That's the point. There's no way to determine who qualifies and who doesn't, without some kind of snooping government.

It is not a gov't it is just free agreement, there is no force, they can just refuse to give you anything.

The same is true of most capitalist societies.

No in capitalism because the means of production are centralised in the hands of a few, most don't have access to them and must for a capitalist for less than the value they create.

Who determines need? Who determines ability?

What are you talking about? You take what you need and contribute what you can.

What subjects in our education system would you replace, and what would you replace them with? Please only cite replacement subjects that don't indoctrinate people in exactly the manner you're accusing the current system of doing.

Huh? I would change the whole thing, from standardised testing to the large schools etc etc

 

[Kandahar]

What are you talking about? they are an example of distribution according to need and hence communism. This is fact. Libertarian communism would just be a mass of similar organisations.

How is that different from what we have now?

People would come together in free agreement to distribute and produce as they like, we feel communism would be the most likely and most just method of distribution and hence people would choose it by free agreement.

The most just method of distribution? What is just about a method of distribution that gives ALL the bread to the first people who come to the supermarket, and leaves everyone else with nothing? There would be MASSIVE shortages under communism...and in fact, there HAVE been every place it has been tried. You can make excuses for why those systems aren't "truly" communist, but ultimately your distinction boils down to a divergence from your ideal POLITICAL system rather than your ideal ECONOMIC system.

And yet you are happy to condemn others to it because they don't have the right qualifications.

I don't support condemning anyone to it. If someone doesn't want to collect trash under any circumstances, fine, they can find another job. However, jobs that no one wants to do need an incentive to make them more appealing. No one would pick up trash, if they could get a job of equal skill that provided the same benefits and WASN'T disgusting.

No this is just a myth, if the state did this capitalism would break down because people could have much easier access to the means of production and hence not work for capitalists.

This is just communist propaganda. If you actually want to discuss the issues, I'd be happy to, but bring something other than meaningless cliches to the table.

Do you steal from your friends or family when they are not looking?

No, but then I care about what my family/friends think of me. I don't really care what "the community" thinks of me...and the larger the community was, the less I would care. Especially because my actions wouldn't actually be stealing (you'd have to have private property to be stealing). I could justify my actions to myself and my community by claiming that I "needed" more of something than I actually did, and my "ability" was less than it actually was.

Not if that is not what is agreed to I would say.

Who sets these "agreements"? How is this entity not a government?

It is not a gov't it is just free agreement, there is no force, they can just refuse to give you anything.

Who is "they"? How is this entity not a government?

No in capitalism because the means of production are centralised in the hands of a few, most don't have access to them and must for a capitalist for less than the value they create.

See above, about meaningless propaganda.

What are you talking about? You take what you need and contribute what you can.

I'd rather take MORE than what I need, and contribute nothing.

Huh? I would change the whole thing, from standardised testing to the large schools etc etc

And why can't we make those changes without communism?

 

[The Mark]

Feela.

After looking at the picture you paint of your apparent ideal governmental system, I do not think that I would want to live in such a community/country.
I think the majority of Americans would agree with me.

While the US government and others like it around the world may have major problems that need corrected, I still think that the basic underlying system is sound.

 

[dragonslayer]

***Excuse me if I don't share that laugh. I'm too busy pushing these social justice freaks into the abyss of no return. Have you extended your political studies to include the social justice implementation of most of Europe? It seems that Europe is currently looking to further progress by using social justice as their ideological paradigm. Looks like its working wonders with their penchant to put the influxes of Muslims on their welfare roles. Europe happens to have the lowest birth rate per capita in the world. Social justice fanatics can't seem to get it right. Europe is dying rather quickly thanks in large part to a communist/social justice ideology. Liberals in America are following their very lead.

I neutered a cat and came up with neutered cat. you live in a strange world.

 

[dragonslayer]

Moderator's Warning:

You are an educated man and a teacher. Please draw upon those talents to set a better example than this.

you are correct and I do apologize. I will watch my language, a lost person is only lost person until that person is recued by an Angel. Maybe I can be Ptskid's angel. I apologize to you Kid. I not talk like that to you any more.

I have been a teacher and counselor of the unfortunate in our society.

 

[dragonslayer]

Ptskid,

In Western Europe they use an economic and political system that is called a Social Democracy, we have experimented with it here, but in Europe it has become the norm.

In a Social Democracy, there is private ownership of production. This is called Capitalism. In this type of system capitalism is not allowed to become monopolistic and super exploitive. The reason for this is that these countries don't want to have things get bad enough for there to be a reason to be a communist revolution. These countries don't like communism. They realize that Capitalism when unchecked causes huge economic gaps and power gaps between the super rich and very poor. For example Cuba, Nationalist China, Czarist Russia, modern Venezuela, any thing called the Peoples Republic of ???

In a Social democracy, there is some equality built in which is lacking in normal normal Capitalism. Medical Care, and Food, housing. Government input into the economy of tax money helps to provide jobs, and the economy as whole prospers. Everyone pays taxes and these countries prosper. These societies are qenerally quite rich,and properous. On the whole even though their societies are not as rich as the united states, that is mainly due to the size of the population, which are ususally much smaller.

These countries are not one step away from communism. There is no slideing toward communism. There is no government ownership of production, but there is regulation and enforcement of these regulations. Exploitation is not allowed and the people have all the freedoms that we have in the United states.

Social Democracy was invented to prevent communism, and it works. That Book you quoted, is pure fantasy.

 

[dragonslayer]

Ptskid,

In Western Europe they use an economic and political system that is called a Social Democracy, we have experimented with it here, but in Europe it has become the norm.

In a Social Democracy, there is private ownership of production. This is called Capitalism. In this type of system capitalism is not allowed to become monopolistic and super exploitive. The reason for this is that these countries don't want to have things get bad enough for there to be a reason to be a communist revolution. These countries don't like communism. They realize that Capitalism when unchecked causes huge economic gaps and power gaps between the super rich and very poor. For example Cuba, Nationalist China, Czarist Russia, modern Venezuela, any thing called the Peoples Republic of ???

In a Social democracy, there is some equality built in which is lacking in normal normal Capitalism. Medical Care, and Food, housing. Government input into the economy of tax money helps to provide jobs, and the economy as whole prospers. Everyone pays taxes and these countries prosper. These societies are qenerally quite rich,and properous. On the whole even though their societies are not as rich as the united states, that is mainly due to the size of the population, which are ususally much smaller.

These countries are not one step away from communism. There is no slideing toward communism. There is no government ownership of production, but there is regulation and enforcement of these regulations. Exploitation is not allowed and the people have all the freedoms that we have in the United states.

Social Democracy was invented to prevent communism, and it works. That Book you quoted, is pure fantasy.

We need to remember that unlike us, Europe has been faced with Communism first hand since the Russian Revolution of 1917, and again since 1945 in eastern Europe. don't forget Berlin Wall, poland, romania, Czechoslovakia. the invasion of Hungary this went on in Europe from 1945, till 1989.

The inherint errors and lessons learned from watching Communism in action has been learned well by Western Europe. Read Marx and Ingles. Read a book called the Communist Manifesto. Communism has been a real threat to Europe since the turn of the 20th century.

Modern Social Democracy looks closely at Communism, Capitalism, corporate monopoly, and the results. The Goal of Social Democracy is to thwart Communism. The countries of Western Europe believe that to allow unchecked corporate domination is this huqe economic gap between the corporate masters and the people which can lead to, class struggle, as Marx called it.

 

[Feela]

We need to remember that unlike us, Europe has been faced with Communism first hand since the Russian Revolution of 1917, and again since 1945 in eastern Europe. don't forget Berlin Wall, poland, romania, Czechoslovakia. the invasion of Hungary this went on in Europe from 1945, till 1989.

The inherint errors and lessons learned from watching Communism in action has been learned well by Western Europe. Read Marx and Ingles. Read a book called the Communist Manifesto. Communism has been a real threat to Europe since the turn of the 20th century.

Modern Social Democracy looks closely at Communism, Capitalism, corporate monopoly, and the results. The Goal of Social Democracy is to thwart Communism. The countries of Western Europe believe that to allow unchecked corporate domination is this huqe economic gap between the corporate masters and the people which can lead to, class struggle, as Marx called it.

Wtf are you talking about? These gov't s were not communist and were certainly not Marxist communist.
Marxist communism is classless and stateless.
Please don't invent your own definitions of communism, those countries were not communist nor claimed to be.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Wtf are you talking about? These gov't s were not communist and were certainly not Marxist communist.
Marxist communism is classless and stateless.
Please don't invent your own definitions of communism, those countries were not communist nor claimed to be.

To say that they weren't communist is believable. To say that they didn't claim to be is just plain ignorant.

 

[Feela]

To say that they weren't communist is believable. To say that they didn't claim to be is just plain ignorant.

When did they ever claim to be communist? They called themselves socialists, as Marxist communism is stateless.
Hence it was the Union of soviet, socialist, republics.

 

[The Mark]

When did they ever claim to be communist? They called themselves socialists, as Marxist communism is stateless.
Hence it was the Union of soviet, socialist, republics.

But they weren't very social, were they?

:mrgreen:

 

[dragonslayer]

Wtf are you talking about? These gov't s were not communist and were certainly not Marxist communist.
Marxist communism is classless and stateless.
Please don't invent your own definitions of communism, those countries were not communist nor claimed to be.

you obviously have not read my articles. I state very clearly that these government are not communists. How can you effectively respond to an article if you don't read it?